From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: weis
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id IAA19677 for caml-redistribution; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 08:51:38 +0100 (MET)
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 BAA02118 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 01:02:48 +0100 (MET)
Received: from tequila.cs.yale.edu (TEQUILA.CS.YALE.EDU [128.36.229.152])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA13741
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 01:02:45 +0100 (MET)
Received: from tequila.cs.yale.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by tequila.cs.yale.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA32751
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 19:02:41 -0500
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Sender: weis
From: "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+lists/caml/news/@tequila.cs.yale.edu>
Newsgroups: lists.caml
Subject: Re: Objective Caml 2.03/4 released
References: <19991119183057.60471@pauillac.inria.fr> <3849537C.4595B14C@maxtal.com.au>
Date: 05 Dec 1999 19:02:36 -0500
Message-ID: <5ld7sl3pib.fsf@tequila.cs.yale.edu>
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.5
Path: tequila.cs.yale.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: tequila.cs.yale.edu
X-Trace: 5 Dec 1999 19:02:36 -0500, tequila.cs.yale.edu

>>>>> "skaller" == skaller  <skaller@maxtal.com.au> writes:
> I've been working on a product using ocaml for some time,
> and I need to make money out of it. The new licence seems
> to preclude this, forcing me to give away my source.

I believe you've misunderstood the license.  If you write code in O'Caml,
the license doesn't impose anything on your software's license.  The
LGPL license on the runtime might force you to ensure that your program
is physically separate from the runtime so that the runtime can be replaced
by your customers if they so desire, but this says nothing about the
license under which your software is distributed.

If your software is a modification of O'Caml then indeed, the license might
impose restrictions, but it's only fair.

> for serious software development. No one can afford
> to develop a production quality software, and then
> be forced to give the it away.

The FSF, RedHat, Cygnus and others are proofs that your "no one"
is incorrect.


	Stefan