From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id BAA04999; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 01:05:39 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA05107 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 01:05:38 +0100 (MET) Received: from mbg.sphere.ne.jp (mbg.sphere.ne.jp [203.138.71.44]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id fB705ab04443 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 01:05:37 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (pl046.nas521.k-tokyo.nttpc.ne.jp [210.165.66.46]) by mbg.sphere.ne.jp (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with ESMTP id JAA13748; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:04:48 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <200112060246.fB62kBw00747@aztec.santafe.edu> References: <200112010323.fB13NGb18105@aztec.santafe.edu> <20011204195356.A22127@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> <200112060246.fB62kBw00747@aztec.santafe.edu> Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml To: rms@gnu.org Cc: luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr, jfield@us.ibm.com, caml-list@inria.fr X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on XEmacs 21.1 (Capitol Reef) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20011207090958P.yoriyuki@ms.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 09:09:58 +0900 From: YAMAGATA yoriyuki X-Dispatcher: imput version 991025(IM133) Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk I am not a member of the ocaml team also, nor the participants of discussion you saw, but since I am planning to distribute something under LGPL, how LGPL is interpreted is my concern. So I would like to add a point to Sven's summary. (Sorry, I guess you are very busy, but you may be concerned with interpretation of LGPL too.) Many of the discussion you saw, is, it seems for me, related to alleged ambiguity of the statement "provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications" in the beginning of the section 6. of LGPL. People are afraid that, in the end, this clause forces developer to provide the source of their "work that uses the Library", or something making reverse engineering easy (like unstriped executable.) How IBM lawyers think about this problem, is reported in http://caml.inria.fr/archives/200111/msg00440.html as From: "John Field" Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 14:10:12 -0500 > IBM's lawyers have lots of experience dissecting the innards of > various open- and quasi-open source licenses. They are _very_ wary > of the LGPL. I won't attempt to explain or justify all of > their concerns, some of which I don't fully understand. However, > their principal objections were to the clauses of the LGPL allowing > "reverse engineering" of and "modifications" to the code. The lawyers > realize that the _intent_ of these clauses is probably benign. However, > the license provisions are so ambiguously worded (as ample discussion > on this list has demonstrated) that the requirements it imposes on an > implementer and the rights it grants to a user are very unclear. May I ask you to clarify this problem? Is it FAQ? -- YAMAGATA, yoriyuki (doctoral student) Department of Mathematical Science, University of Tokyo. ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr