From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83])
	by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D07557EE51
	for <caml-list@sympa.inria.fr>; Fri, 24 May 2013 00:52:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  oliver@first.in-berlin.de) identity=pra;
  client-ip=192.109.42.8;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="oliver@first.in-berlin.de";
  x-sender="oliver@first.in-berlin.de";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  oliver@first.in-berlin.de) identity=mailfrom;
  client-ip=192.109.42.8;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="oliver@first.in-berlin.de";
  x-sender="oliver@first.in-berlin.de";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender
  authenticity information available from domain of
  postmaster@einhorn.in-berlin.de) identity=helo;
  client-ip=192.109.42.8;
  receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr;
  envelope-from="oliver@first.in-berlin.de";
  x-sender="postmaster@einhorn.in-berlin.de";
  x-conformance=sidf_compatible
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvUDAEmdnlHAbSoIlGdsb2JhbABZhhlauU+COYJnBAGBDBYOAQEBAQkLCQkUBCSCIwEBBQwXDwFGEAkCCQ8CAgUMFQICDwUYMYggBI0PmyaRWBaBEIxggRcHCoI3MmEDjweIM5RS
X-IPAS-Result: AvUDAEmdnlHAbSoIlGdsb2JhbABZhhlauU+COYJnBAGBDBYOAQEBAQkLCQkUBCSCIwEBBQwXDwFGEAkCCQ8CAgUMFQICDwUYMYggBI0PmyaRWBaBEIxggRcHCoI3MmEDjweIM5RS
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,730,1363129200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="18757931"
Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8])
  by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 24 May 2013 00:52:35 +0200
X-Envelope-From: oliver@first.in-berlin.de
Received: from first (e178019155.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.19.155])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by einhorn.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id r4NMqVRe027632
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);
	Fri, 24 May 2013 00:52:32 +0200
Received: by first (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id BC72F154066B; Fri, 24 May 2013 00:52:31 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 00:52:31 +0200
From: oliver <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>
To: =?utf-8?B?VMO2csO2aw==?= Edwin <edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Message-ID: <20130523225231.GA6510@siouxsie>
References: <20130522123427.GA1894@siouxsie>
 <519CC1C8.3060502@etorok.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <519CC1C8.3060502@etorok.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang_at_IN-Berlin_e.V. on 192.109.42.8
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Licenses - Confusion

Hi,

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 04:02:00PM +0300, Török Edwin wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 03:34 PM, oliver wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I did publish one of my tools as GPLv3.
> > It is written in OCaml.
> > 
> > Now I saw at another project, that there is the need
> > for an "OCaml exception" regarding linking.
> > 
> > If thats true I may have missed a crucial points
> > when thinking about the license for tools written in OCaml.
> 
> I think that only matters if you release a *library* under LGPL.
[...]

OK, it seems, this is the point of distinction: if it is a library,
then the things, that were explained in this thread, about OCaml
and linking and checksums must be taken into account.

But when just publishing a program that should be used as is,
then it does not matter.

So, my questions were answered by you and others.

Thanks to all participants.


Ciao,
   Oliver