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 PAA28664; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:35:38 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA28534 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:35:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail.davidb.org (adsl-64-172-240-129.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net [64.172.240.129]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i87DZZ37032121 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:35:36 +0200 Received: from davidb by mail.davidb.org with local (Exim 4.41 #1 (Debian)) id 1C4g8B-000333-2o; Tue, 07 Sep 2004 06:35:31 -0700 Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 06:35:31 -0700 From: David Brown To: skaller Cc: Jacques Garrigue , caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Announcing the OMake build system version 0.9.1 Message-ID: <20040907133531.GB11460@old.davidb.org> References: <7810902A-FF99-11D8-8747-000A958FF2FE@wetware.com> <20040906.113527.125105732.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> <1094463492.3352.1061.camel@pelican.wigram> <20040906.203420.68034706.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> <1094488104.3352.1160.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1094488104.3352.1160.camel@pelican.wigram> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 413DB927.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 caml-list:01 2004:99 lgpl:01 exemption:01 gpl:01 lgpl'd:01 lgpl:01 gpl:01 fuzzy:01 conceptually:01 fixpoint:01 recipient:98 ocaml:01 sep:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 02:28:24AM +1000, skaller wrote: > 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. This distinction is not absurd, at all. Dynamic linking allows the recipient of a binary to easily replace the LGPL'd library (which is a requirement of the LGPL). With static linking, you have to distribute objects, or a library consisting of the rest of the program. I wasn't aware that the GPL allowed dynamic linking. The only exception granted is that, since the GPL only covers distribution, the user is free to dynamic link whatever libraries they wish into the program. The only requirement the GPL makes is that these other libraries cannot be required for normal operation. But, yes, it starts to get kind of fuzzy when you move away from the C notion of static and dynamic linking to other systems that differ conceptually from what was thought of at the time the GPL and LGPL were written. Perhaps this is why the GPL-3 has never acheived a fixpoint :-) Dave ------------------- 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