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 EAA02332; Sun, 5 Sep 2004 04:37:24 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA00842 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 2004 04:37:22 +0200 (MET DST) X-SPAM-Warning: Sending machine is listed in blackholes.five-ten-sg.com Received: from wetware.com (wetware.wetware.com [199.108.16.1]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i852bMnK006598 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 2004 04:37:22 +0200 Received: from [208.177.152.17] (helo=[10.0.1.5]) by wetware.com with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1C3mu9-0007Cz-Bm for caml-list@inria.fr; Sat, 04 Sep 2004 19:37:21 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) In-Reply-To: <20040905020318.GA3858@old.davidb.org> References: <4139ECD3.1050708@cs.caltech.edu> <001e01c492a6$872c7280$19b0e152@warp> <413A0921.7030607@ntlworld.com> <002301c492db$11b9aa10$19b0e152@warp> <90216F7A-FED9-11D8-837C-000A958FF2FE@wetware.com> <20040905020318.GA3858@old.davidb.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <838ECA4C-FEE4-11D8-837C-000A958FF2FE@wetware.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: james woodyatt Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Announcing the OMake build system version 0.9.1 Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 19:37:22 -0700 To: The Caml Trade X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 413A7BE2.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; woodyatt:01 jhw:01 wetware:01 caml-list:01 2004:99 woodyatt:01 gpl:01 gpl:01 binary-only:01 posix:01 jhw:01 wetware:01 linked:01 0700,:01 sep:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On 04 Sep 2004, at 19:03, David Brown wrote: > On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 06:18:58PM -0700, james woodyatt wrote: > >> OMake looks good, but it is GPL? which prevents me from using it until >> it is a widely distributed and mature product. > > There isn't any particular reason you couldn't distribute a GPL program > along with a program of another license. They aren't linked together, > and > therefore the licenses don't affect one another. Your program could > even > be a closed-source binary-only program that is distributed along with > omake > (but there is less of a need to do so). No. If I turn to a construction tool that comprises the functions I want in addition to what is available in the POSIX make(1) tool, then I will want to construct my project in such a way that establishes a linkage between my source code and the construction tool under the terms of the GPL. The GPL prevents me from using OMake for anything other than what I already use Make. That's no good for me. -- j h woodyatt markets are only free to the people who own them. ------------------- 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