From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E703BB84 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:28:40 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtQAAO1kKknUGyokkWdsb2JhbACTXgEBAQEJCwoHEQO8d4J8 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,660,1220220000"; d="scan'208";a="31775622" Received: from concorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.39]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2008 17:28:40 +0100 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id mAOGSdx9000303 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:28:39 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtQAAO1kKknUGyokkWdsb2JhbACTXgEBAQEJCwoHEQO8d4J8 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,660,1220220000"; d="scan'208";a="31775620" Received: from smtp6-g19.free.fr ([212.27.42.36]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2008 17:28:39 +0100 Received: from smtp6-g19.free.fr (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp6-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9C4F197AC for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:28:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.17.1] (ivr94-8-88-162-26-239.fbx.proxad.net [88.162.26.239]) by smtp6-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B1D2172D0 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:28:33 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <492AD626.10703@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:28:22 +0100 From: Zheng Li User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OCaml Mailing List Subject: QPL license issue on toplevel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 492AD637.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; toplevel:01 toplevel:01 toplevel's:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 ocamlmktop:01 topmain:01 camlp:01 lgpl:01 sourceforge:01 gpl:01 imho:01 reflection:01 functions:01 functions:01 Dear list, I'm working towards a pure library version of the enhtop (an enhanced toplevel). I have some question about the toplevel's license of OCaml (QPL). IMHO, OCaml toplevel allows to dynamic load libraries that are distributed *independently* under other licenses (even GPL or proprietary ones). I'm not sure about the _official_ understanding to this, but I guess that loading in toplevel is considered as - end-user dynamic linking - or execution If we neither build the libraries and toplevel into one binary (via ocamlmktop) to distribute, nor do we wrap their source code as a bundle for delivery, we don't have to face any license issue. Is that correct? Then how about a library that explicitly calls some toplevel functions (e.g. Topmain.xxx). This might be considered as "intend to link with XXX", so must such a library be always released under QPL? (One counterexample might be camlp4, part of which calls toplevel functions and is released under LGPL, but it comes from the same team anyway ...) Another option (if I want to avoid QPL) is to use reflection, so that the library don't have to call toplevel functions explicitly, but it still requires to work inside a toplevel (or together with a toplevel library). However I doubt whether this trick (or say cheating) is considered valid. Any precedents? Thanks. -- Zheng