RE: [Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml

["Dave Berry" <Dave@kal.com>]

I believe the intent of the section of the LGPL that Patrick is quoting
is to prevent unscrupulous people from incorporating an LGPL'd library
into a library of their own and distributing it free from the terms of
the LGPL.  Clearly this scenario would be a way of breaking the intent
of the licence.  I don't believe this section is intended to cover
applications.

Why does intent matter?  Three reasons:

1. The issue of morality.
2. The likelihood (or otherwise) of the FSF to sue.
3. Possibly even law, in some countries.

The underlying problem is that the LGPL is designed for
dynamically-linked libraries, and O'Caml is statically linked.  It's a
square peg and a round hole.  IM(limited)O, the best way to fix it is to
make OCaml use dynamic linking.

Dave.

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick M Doane [mailto:patrick@watson.org]
Sent: 09 November 2001 15:40
To: Julian Assange
Cc: Sven; Michael Welsh Duggan; Caml-list
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml


On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Julian Assange wrote:

>
> All this legalise is very interesting, but in the end, as with all
legalise
> there is only one important issue:
>
>      a) Who has the motivation, resources and standing to fuck with
you?
>
> Hint: it's not INRIA.

The issue of morality is very important to me and cannot be ignored.
Besides, the FSF has plenty of motivation and resources.

-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ:
http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
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/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr