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 DAA18079; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 03:04:46 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 DAA15269 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 03:04:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from outbound28-2.lax.untd.com (outbound28-2.lax.untd.com [64.136.28.160]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with SMTP id i8614isq012550 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 03:04:44 +0200 Received: from outbound28-2.lax.untd.com (smtp04.lax.untd.com [10.130.24.124]) by smtpout04.lax.untd.com with SMTP id AABAVZP6BA6NJYLA for (sender ); Sun, 5 Sep 2004 18:04:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 8148 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2004 01:03:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vangogh) (4.242.105.170) by smtp04.lax.untd.com with SMTP; 6 Sep 2004 01:03:51 -0000 From: "Brandon J. Van Every" To: "caml" Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Announcing the OMake build system version 0.9.1 Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 18:14:51 -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: <7810902A-FF99-11D8-8747-000A958FF2FE@wetware.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Importance: Normal X-ContentStamp: 14:7:2127338200 X-UNTD-OriginStamp: CI84cOLHFqh7Zd2QWkwvEFvwyO3T/pIsFsCrOjjLH87ZmK9D549WiUR8RborBFC2 X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 413BB7AC.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 woodyatt:01 declining:99 lgpl:01 permissive:01 gpl:01 lgpl:01 gpled:01 barrier:01 gpl:01 gpled:01 ironically:01 purports:01 bug:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk james woodyatt wrote: > > I'm not trying to argue for you to change the license. I am > not nearly > enough of an egomaniac to believe that my declining to use your tool > should be considered a "strong argument" for you to adopt a different > license. But what other argument could ever be made? "Strength" of argument is subjective for all parties, but the argument is inevitably stated in terms of other people's needs and desires. A dealbreaker is a dealbreaker. LGPL is more permissive than GPL, that much is clear. It's all a question of how much restriction you think is necessary for open source to function in the manner you want. I think the LGPL is more appealing to people who think that some restrictions on commerce are a good idea, but are more interested in commercial recombinative utility than FSF ideology. I would note that GNU Make is GPLed and the vast majority of people just use it, warts and all. People with special anti-GPL build needs are a special case. Such people may create better build methodologies for us someday, but in the present, GPLing a tool is not a barrier for the vast majority of build tasks. One of the few areas where I feel a GPL is acceptable and valid is for a tool that's particularly cut-and-dried. Why should I care if my paint program is GPLed, for instance? I just want to paint. I'm not looking for starter code for a commercial paint program. Ironically, the GPL defeats my freedom to recombine such code as I wish... the very thing the GPL purports to protect! But if I actually don't care about that freedom, if I just want to use the tool rather than write a new tool, GPL is fine. Maybe I'd fix a bug because it's open source, but otherwise, why do I care? The only true freedom is putting the code in the public domain. MIT/BSD licenses are pretty darned close to that freedom. The GPL is not a 'total freedom' license, but rather an 'anti-proprietary' license. The GPL philosophy is that proprietary code is Bad [TM]. Waiting for the flames to ensue, for having dared to discuss licenses, even and despite having made points for all of the main open source licenses. Please, do flame away for adding an off-topic licensing discussion to an already painfully long thread. I'm sooooooo waiting to hear how I'm the purveyor of Noise Pollution, in the AC/DC sense. ;-) Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com Brand*n Van Every S*attle, WA Praise Be to the caml-list Bayesian filter! It blesseth my postings, it is evil crap! evil crap! Bigarray! Unboxed overhead group! Wondering! chant chant chant... Is my technical content showing? // return an array of 100 packed tuples temps int $[tvar0][2*100]; // what the c function needs value $[tvar1]; // one int value $[tvar2]; // one tuple int $[tvar3] // loop control var oncePre eachPre $[cvar0]=&($[tvar0][0]); eachPost $[lvar0] = alloc(2*100, 0 /*NB: zero-tagged block*/ ); for(int $[tvar3]=0;$[tvar3]<100;$[tvar3]++) { $[tvar2] = alloc_tuple(2); $[tvar1] = Val_int($[cvar0][0+2*$[tvar3]]); Store_field($[tvar2],0,$[tvar1]); $[tvar1] = Val_int($[cvar0][1]); Store_field($[tvar2],1,$[tvar1+2*$[tvar3]]); Array_store($[lvar0],$[tvar3],$[tvar0]); } oncePost ------------------- 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