Re: [Caml-list] Licenses - Confusion

["Stéphane Glondu" <steph@glondu.net>]

Le 22/05/2013 19:19, Adrien Nader a écrit :
> As Török said, OCaml's checksums can be annoying for such tasks.
> However, *IIRC* (it's been some time), the checksums are on the
> interface of the modules and the LGPL says that you need to allow
> relinking with libraries that are (binary?) compatible and that's what
> the checksums guarantee.

For native code, checksums are also on the implementation approximations
(such as inlined functions, symbol names for direct access). Changing a
library to keep it binary compatible with that is impossible in practice
with the current tools.

But actually, someone linking a closed-source executable using a pure
LGPL library can just remove all *.cmx files of external libraries when
compiling so that the approximations are not used, and the binary
dependency will only be on interfaces. And, obviously, that person would
need also to distribute all the *.{cma,cmxa,a} files needed to link said
executable.

> PS: *I* consider that BSD-style licenses cater for the needs of the
> programmers while the GPL-style ones cater to the users
> (that's my very own opinion)

Keep in mind that programmers may be users but not copyright owners.

I would say BSD-style licenses cater for the needs of organizations, and
GPL-style ones cater for individuals.


Cheers,

-- 
Stéphane