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 VAA04920; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:59:02 +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 VAA02941 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:59:01 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail3.tpgi.com.au (mail.tpgi.com.au [203.12.160.59]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h8KJwx506601 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:59:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from 203-213-84-92-syd-ts16-2600.tpgi.com.au (203-213-84-92-syd-ts16-2600.tpgi.com.au [203.213.84.92]) by mail3.tpgi.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h8KJwn304534; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 05:58:49 +1000 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Commercial application written in O'Caml: ExcelEverywhere From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@ozemail.com.au To: Oleg Trott Cc: Mattias Waldau , caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <200309191829.04642.oleg_trott@columbia.edu> References: <3F6AB7CB.6020505@abc.se> <1063969848.27470.42.camel@pelican> <200309191829.04642.oleg_trott@columbia.edu> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1064087920.2679.90.camel@pelican> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 21 Sep 2003 05:58:40 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ozemail:01 oleg:01 lgpl:01 permissive:01 runtime:01 lgpl:01 runtime:01 open-source:01 discourage:01 bug:01 ffau:99 gpl:01 compiler:01 compiler:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 08:29, Oleg Trott wrote: > On Friday 19 September 2003 07:10 am, skaller wrote: > > Agree. Too many LGPL contributions, which I can't > > use in my open source project because it has a > > public domain licence -- I *desire* to encourage > > commercial use of my code: the more users the better. > > Does it make sense to give your library a license any more permissive than > OCaml runtime (LGPL with static linking) ? Applications using your library > will have to use OCaml runtime anyway. The difference comes up only when the > user changes your library. On the other hand, having LGPL license may > encourage open-source advocates to contribute. > My work isn't a library, its a program. A compiler in fact. When the client uses the compiler, they're using Ocaml run time, but I don't provide it -- they have to download it themselves and build the compiler using Ocaml. As such, my codes can have any licence I want: Ocaml can surely be used to build an run any program, no matter what the licence of the sources of the program. It is quite true that LGPL might encourage some people to contribute. But it would discourage others. In particular, the product takes that woeful propietary system Java head on, and I do not wish to alienate potential commerical users by risking their enterprise by preventing them modifying my sources if necessary to adapt to their requirements (or fix a bug). I believe such users will contribute anyhow, without any recourse to legalism, simply because cooperation is in their own interest on this kind of product. Note that my product *is* Open Source: I'd hope open source people will contribute even though it is FFAU, rather than GPL -- I want those people to be USERS of the system too, and hope they'll contribute for the same reason as commerical developers -- because it is in their own interest (and not some altruistic goal). ------------------- 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