Re: [Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml

[Sven <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>]

On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 12:58:30AM -0500, Patrick M Doane wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Michael Welsh Duggan wrote:
> 
> > Patrick M Doane <patrick@watson.org> 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"...
> 
> It's section 6. I extracted two sections from it (that I labeled 1 and 2).

But apparently without reading it indepth, or at least understanding what it
trully says.

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