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 DAA18317; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 03:02:06 +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 DAA18224 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 03:02:04 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from outbound28-2.lax.untd.com (outbound28-2.lax.untd.com [64.136.28.160]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i5A122SH025997 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 03:02:03 +0200 Received: from outbound28-2.lax.untd.com (smtp04.lax.untd.com [10.130.24.124]) by smtpout05.lax.untd.com with SMTP id AABANRNZWAQUZQUJ for (sender ); Wed, 9 Jun 2004 18:01:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 10113 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2004 01:01:00 -0000 Received: from 66-52-229-35.sttl.dial.netzero.com (HELO vangogh) (66.52.229.35) by smtp04.lax.untd.com with SMTP; 10 Jun 2004 01:01:00 -0000 From: "Brandon J. Van Every" To: "caml" Subject: RE: [Caml-list] MLGame library Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 18:10:46 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <40C7AABB.4030808@1969.ws> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal X-ContentStamp: 14:7:359585254 X-UNTD-OriginStamp: CI84cOLHFqh7Zd2QWkwvEFvwyO3T/pIsPQZphDk9MRhzJy8hFX57FHzx4c2OSW+j X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 40C7B30A.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; brandon:99 caml-list:01 lgpl:01 lgpl:01 relink:01 boils:01 lgpl'd:01 rabid:01 posts:01 threads:01 gpl:01 persuaded:01 gpl:01 contractual:99 model:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Karl Zilles wrote: > > Well, they changed the LGPL a while back to make it a little more > complicated. Not only do you have to distribute the source of the > library you changed, but you also have to distribute *your > object code* > in a way that someone can then modify the LGPL library and relink it > with the code you have written, creating a new executable. I'm > paraphrasing, but I think that's what it boils down to roughly. > > It's not the worst thing imaginable, but it dulls any interest many > commercial developers might have in using an LGPL'd library. The > 'exception' that he's talking about removes this additional > requirement, making it as you originally describe. I was unaware of this. I'll have to study up on that. > Xavier will undoubtable be pleased to see another licensing > discussion > on the list. The way these things usually work out, someone > will soon > suggest that a 'BSD' license is really the way to go, then we'll see > about 30 rabid posts arguing the situation from both sides, repeating > the same arguments that they did 3 months ago when it last broke out. Looking back, I see I was a part of those threads. Frankly, I could care less how people want to license their own software. I'm only interested in whether the MLGame people have considered the LGPL, a license that's potentially useful to me. I find that a lot of people who release their first cut of something as GPL, simply haven't thought through the commercial implications. They can often be persuaded to change to LGPL on the grounds of greater utility to a larger audience. But if they have thought it through and aren't interested, so be it. No big deal. Not everybody's interested in commercial stuff. What gets me riled up is the zealousy of a lot of people in the GPL camp. Charges of MIT / BSD "evil profiteers," "you're just here to rip us off," "all software should be free," "the contractual service model is the only valid business model," etc. I don't respect that kind of thinking, any more than I respect people who think property rights shouldn't exist. Far too many MIT / BSD style projects have proven that open source under that model works just fine, is enlightened, provides people with real benefit, is not inequitable, etc. It all depends on whether you're into idealistic theory, or what works out in pratice. My own idealism is tempered by pragmatism. I don't like extreme idealists who are not so tempered. Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA 20% of the world is real. 80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.693 / Virus Database: 454 - Release Date: 5/31/2004 ------------------- 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