Re: [Caml-list] Re: [ANN] coThreads 0.10

[Ken Rose <kenrose@nc-sys.com>]

skaller wrote:

> Whether or not the conditions are straightforward to fulfil
> depends on the producers goals. If you were making an embedded
> application it would almost certainly not be, and it would
> be a legal impediment. Do you know any vendors of console
> games, for example, that tell you how to modify a part of the
> game? The software build processes used are almost certainly
> trade secrets.
> 
> Even in my own FFAU product, whilst the whole of the sources
> is available for inspection and modification, I certainly
> don't document all of it -- if you want to modify a library
> you'll have to go read all the source and find out yourself.
> 
> It isn't clear that satisfies the "make it possible for the
> client to replace the library" requirement.


There was a discussion ten years ago or so, perhaps on the cross-gcc
list, that Stallman joined.  He said something to the effect that if you
provided object code in a linkable format (even partially linked) so
that a user could link in the library in question, you'd satisfied the
license.  You didn't have to provide instructions, guidance, or help.
If the binary then had to be embedded in a masked ROM in the middle of
your giant ASIC, that was the hacker's problem, not yours.

 - ken