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 HAA00961; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:29:14 +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 HAA00527 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:29:13 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail.davidb.org (adsl-64-172-240-129.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net [64.172.240.129]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i9P5TB5S004000 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:29:13 +0200 Received: from davidb by mail.davidb.org with local (Exim 4.42 #1 (Debian)) id 1CLxPm-00015m-SS; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 22:29:06 -0700 Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 22:29:06 -0700 From: David Brown To: skaller Cc: David Brown , Christoph Bauer , OCaml List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Announce: Schoca-0.2.3 released Message-ID: <20041025052906.GA4134@old.davidb.org> References: <1098642597.3075.32.camel@pelican.wigram> <20041025025832.GA1582@old.davidb.org> <1098681488.3075.151.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1098681488.3075.151.camel@pelican.wigram> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 417C8F27.000 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 gpl:01 gpl:01 hosted:99 gpl'd:01 binary:02 modules:02 receive:97 dave:03 licence:03 wrote:03 annoying:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 03:18:09PM +1000, skaller wrote: > I'm wrong, LGPL specifically allows change of licence to GPL. > Sorry. Allows, but not requires. > > The GPL is not an infectious agent. > > Read this, taken from the OSI hosted copy of GPL: > > "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in > whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part > thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties > under the terms of this License." If the other files are already under a license that is more liberal than the GPL, the license of those files does not have to change in order for the whole to be licensed. I've not, until now ever heard that this was the case. The authors of the GPL certainly do not intend this. If I receive a GPL'd program, I must be able to at least do all of the things that the GPL requires I be able to do. However, some of the files in the GPL may be covered under more liberal license, and I am free to take those modules and do these more liberal things with them. > In addition, the binary is GPL no matter how you package things, > and then: Yes. That is the point. That you find the GPL annoying for the reasons you do does mean it has made its point. 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