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 GAA02431; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 06:53:41 +0100 (MET) 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 GAA02633 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 06:53:40 +0100 (MET) Received: from maru (MARU.REM.CS.CMU.EDU [128.237.163.21]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id fA95rdn29473 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2001 06:53:39 +0100 (MET) Received: from md5i by maru with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 1624ba-0007az-00 for ; Fri, 09 Nov 2001 00:53:30 -0500 To: Caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml References: <20011108235538.V73712-100000@fledge.watson.org> From: Michael Welsh Duggan Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 00:53:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20011108235538.V73712-100000@fledge.watson.org> (Patrick M Doane's message of "Fri, 9 Nov 2001 00:35:11 -0500 (EST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/21.1.50 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Patrick M Doane writes: > OCaml doesn't provide support for shared libraries (although 3.03 does > provide some dynamic loading capabilities for bytecode only). So we > need to consider the portions of the license that apply for static > linking. The LGPL provides some rather contradictory statements in section > 6 regarding that: > > 1. you may also compile or link a "work that uses the Library" with the > Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and > distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the > terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and > reverse engineering for debugging such modifications. > > This clause is enough to throw out most commercial applications. It is > standard industry practice to disallow reverse engineering. Most software > companies are going to resist changing this - and for good reason too. That is section 1. Section 6 begins, "as an exception to the Sections above"... -- Michael Duggan (md5i@cs.cmu.edu) ------------------- 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