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 VAA32339; Wed, 30 May 2001 21:06:39 +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 VAA32500 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 21:06:39 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from shell5.ba.best.com (shell5.ba.best.com [206.184.139.136]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f4UJ6bv08390 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 21:06:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (bpr@localhost) by shell5.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.sh) with ESMTP id MAA11615 for ; Wed, 30 May 2001 12:06:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 12:06:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Rogoff To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: [Caml-list] CDK license Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk I notice that the CDK license is GPL, rather than LGPL. I've read the discussions of GPL vs LGPL, and I'm not unsympathetic to the Free Software cause, but (speaking for myself here) as a commercial OCaml user I won't be able to use the CDK for this reason. So, for instance, I'll end up grabbing lablgtk and PCRE directly from the source where their authors chose to release it under LGPL, rather than using the CDK. Was this a conscientious choice on the part of the CDK developers? If so, then perhaps Caml Consortium members should think about creating a less encumbered "standard" library. It would be a pity to have to duplicate this effort. -- Brian ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr