From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21238BBAF for ; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:02:42 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuEAAEfDUktV2gB5mWdsb2JhbACDYZgiAQEBAQEICwoHE6p3jCiBLIIwVgSJOQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,291,1262559600"; d="scan'208";a="41963675" Received: from emailfrontal2.citycable.ch ([85.218.0.121]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with SMTP; 17 Jan 2010 17:02:41 +0100 Received: from [192.168.0.12] (unknown [85.218.92.99]) (Authenticated sender: guillaume.yziquel@citycable.ch) by emailfrontal2.citycable.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8109BB104FA; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:02:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4B53349C.7060700@citycable.ch> Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:02:36 +0100 From: Guillaume Yziquel Reply-To: guillaume.yziquel@citycable.ch User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090707) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dario Teixeira Cc: OCaml List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] GPL with linking exception? References: <481835.69615.qm@web111506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <481835.69615.qm@web111506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam: no; 0.00; guillaume:01 guillaume:01 lgpl:01 lgpl:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 statically:01 renders:01 stub:01 interfacing:01 compilation:01 runtime:01 bytecode:01 runtime:01 bytecode:01 Dario Teixeira a =C3=A9crit : > Hi, >=20 >> I've been looking around on the net to see if I could find >> a GPL3 + linking exception copyright notice lying around. I >> only found LGPL + linking exception. >> >> Does anyone know what to write for GPL3 + linking >> exception? Is it even possible, or is only LGPL + linking >> exception possible? >=20 > IANALNDIPOOTV (I am neither a lawyer nor do I play one on TV), but I'm > under the impression that the linking exception only makes sense to > appease the requirements of LGPL. The LGPL requires that the main bina= ry > may be used with an updated version of the LGPL library, which in most > cases implies some form of dynamic linking. However, this conflicts > with the most common way of building Ocaml programs, where all Ocaml > libraries are statically linked into the main executable. Hence the > need for a linking exception, which relaxes the LGPL requirement. If, > on the other hand, the library is GPL, then all source code is availabl= e > (library + main), which renders this point moot. >=20 > Best regards, > Dario Teixeira I acknowledge that you are not a lawyer, nor that you play one on TV. To my understanding the LGPL requires that you be able to replace the=20 LGPL'd library by another library (including an updated version of the=20 library). To this extent, it (very roughly and very quickly) imposes=20 conditions on the stub code interfacing the two libraries, and you need=20 to be able to reproduce the compilation steps. Very roughly... I'm not a=20 lawyer either. Nor do I play one on TV. I do not believe (but I may be mistaken) that this conflicts with the=20 static linkage of the main executable. But if you have the ocaml runtime=20 getting linked in some way or the other, then the LGPL becomes somehow=20 not very handy. Is this the main reason? My question about GPL is mostly the following: Can you distribute GPL=20 bytecode files? Do you have any issues when 'linking' the runtime with=20 the GPL bytecode? Or are there other issues preventing from releasing GPL OCaml code? All the best, --=20 Guillaume Yziquel http://yziquel.homelinux.org/