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 PAA20256; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 15:24:54 +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 PAA20261 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 15:24:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr (dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.6.1]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f58DOpn08647 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 15:24:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from lambda.u-strasbg.fr (mail@lambda.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.90.63]) by dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA07299; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 15:23:38 +0200 Received: from luther by lambda.u-strasbg.fr with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 158MIL-0003Di-00; Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:27:21 +0200 Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 15:27:20 +0200 To: Brian Rogoff Cc: Dave Berry , Sven LUTHER , reig@dcs.gla.ac.uk, caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] CDK license Message-ID: <20010608152720.D12090@lambda.u-strasbg.fr> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i From: Sven LUTHER Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 09:24:12AM -0700, Brian Rogoff wrote: > > If your main aim is to protect your code from unwanted use, then go > > ahead and use the GPL or LGPL. If your main aim is to get your code > > used as widely as possible, use a less restrictive license. Surely the > > aim of the CDK is to promote wide use, rather than to restrict it? > > That's my take on it. Besides, if I use someone else's library in a > commercial product, it seems that it would be in my best interests to > contribute fixes and enhancements. That's why I don't mind an LGPL like Yes, that's the main point here. It would be in your best interrest and that of the ocaml community as well. > approach which forces me to do so. What I don't want to do is to use > someone's library for some data structure and then have *all* of my code > forced to accept that license. The LGPL don't force you to do that, but i think many people think such, is it not ? That's the main reason why it was created instead of just using the GPL for libraries. Friendly, Sven Luther ------------------- 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