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 CAA15847; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 02:25:53 +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 CAA16208 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 02:25:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from woodstock.1969.ws (64-215-156-42.eosinc.net [64.215.156.42]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i5A0PnEV011341 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 02:25:50 +0200 Received: (qmail 24086 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2004 00:20:41 -0000 Received: from karl.1969.ws (HELO ?10.3.2.15?) (10.3.2.15) by woodstock.1969.ws with SMTP; 10 Jun 2004 00:20:41 -0000 Message-ID: <40C7AABB.4030808@1969.ws> Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 17:26:35 -0700 From: Karl Zilles Organization: 1969 Communications, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040502) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Brandon J. Van Every" CC: caml Subject: Re: [Caml-list] MLGame library References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 40C7AA8D.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 brandon:99 lgpl:01 lgpl:01 gpl:01 relink:01 boils:01 lgpl'd:01 rabid:01 posts:01 linking:02 executable:03 wrote:03 library:03 library:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Brandon J. Van Every wrote: > Here is my understanding of the LGPL. Since ancient times, one has been > perfectly free to do whatever one likes *on top of* a LGPL library, i.e. > linking to it. There is no 'exception' required, that's why it's the > LGPL not the GPL. The only stipulation is you must redistribute the > source code *of the LGPL library* along with your proprietary stuff on > top of it. Your proprietary stuff can be completely and utterly closed. Well, they changed the LGPL a while back to make it a little more complicated. Not only do you have to distribute the source of the library you changed, but you also have to distribute *your object code* in a way that someone can then modify the LGPL library and relink it with the code you have written, creating a new executable. I'm paraphrasing, but I think that's what it boils down to roughly. It's not the worst thing imaginable, but it dulls any interest many commercial developers might have in using an LGPL'd library. The 'exception' that he's talking about removes this additional requirement, making it as you originally describe. Xavier will undoubtable be pleased to see another licensing discussion on the list. The way these things usually work out, someone will soon suggest that a 'BSD' license is really the way to go, then we'll see about 30 rabid posts arguing the situation from both sides, repeating the same arguments that they did 3 months ago when it last broke out. ------------------- 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