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 EAA07833; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 04:23:14 +0200 (MET DST) 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 EAA07262 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 04:23:11 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.1]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i872N9kH030541 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 04:23:10 +0200 Received: from localhost (suiren.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.25]) by kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (8.9.3p2-20030924/3.7W) with ESMTP id LAA13804; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 11:22:00 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 11:21:59 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20040907.112159.74194635.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Announcing the OMake build system version 0.9.1 From: Jacques GARRIGUE In-Reply-To: <1094488104.3352.1160.camel@pelican.wigram> References: <1094463492.3352.1061.camel@pelican.wigram> <20040906.203420.68034706.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> <1094488104.3352.1160.camel@pelican.wigram> X-Mailer: Mew version 4.0.64 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 413D1B8D.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 jacques:01 sourceforge:01 2004:99 jacques:01 sourceforge:01 gpl:01 lgpl:01 exemption:01 gpl:01 lgpl:01 courts:99 ocaml:01 garrigue:01 garrigue:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk From: skaller > On Mon, 2004-09-06 at 21:34, Jacques Garrigue wrote: > > From: skaller > > > Or will you tell me that using gnu make forces me to put all my software > > under the GPL! > > I have no idea -- that's the point. My guess is the license > is unenforcible because it depends on terms such as > 'linkage' which can't be well defined in a unique way. > > The only way acceptable to a court would be 'community > consensus' about what constitues linkage. > > I believe most people believe that > at the moment static linkage to even LGPL (without Ocaml > exemption) infects, but dynamic linkage doesn't. > > Given such an absurd distinction I doubt I have any > real idea what the GPL actually says for more > difficult cases. 1) this is not a problem of infection, but of right to do something or not. And the problem with the LGPL is not a problem of linkage (LGPL puts no restriction on the linkage itself), but that there are conditions in the LGPL which are difficult to fulfill without dynamic linking (difficult - not impossible). 2) the point I was trying to make was that the distinction between static and dynamic linkage is not relevant here, since the tool discussed does not link to anything anyway. Or do you just mean that since linkage has not been tested before the courts, it may mean just anything, including everything present on the same hard disk? An ambiguity is only a problem if you happen to be in the ambiguous area. I do not see how it can matter when you are well outside of it. (My last answer, this discussion is getting completely ridiculous) Jacques Garrigue ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners