From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 9A86D7EE51 for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 15:02:24 +0200 (CEST) Received-SPF: None (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net) identity=pra; client-ip=176.9.138.55; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net"; x-sender="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net designates 176.9.138.55 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=176.9.138.55; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net"; x-sender="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: Pass (mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr: domain of postmaster@mail.etorok.net designates 176.9.138.55 as permitted sender) identity=helo; client-ip=176.9.138.55; receiver=mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="edwin+ml-ocaml@etorok.net"; x-sender="postmaster@mail.etorok.net"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiYFAIDBnFGwCYo3/2dsb2JhbABagmchg2u+MYEDFnSCIwEBBSMdAQE2Ag8LGAICBRYLAgIJAwIBAgFFEwgCiAoDqFZyg0wBBY16BoEmjXsWgiuBE4kcjh+RQIMS X-IPAS-Result: AiYFAIDBnFGwCYo3/2dsb2JhbABagmchg2u+MYEDFnSCIwEBBSMdAQE2Ag8LGAICBRYLAgIJAwIBAgFFEwgCiAoDqFZyg0wBBY16BoEmjXsWgiuBE4kcjh+RQIMS X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,719,1363129200"; d="scan'208";a="18497896" Received: from mail.etorok.net ([176.9.138.55]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 22 May 2013 15:02:02 +0200 Received: from [IPv6:2a02:2f09:4060:1f9:5dc2:31a0:f19:535] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:2f09:4060:1f9:5dc2:31a0:f19:535]) by mail.etorok.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 05A6B46AF for ; Wed, 22 May 2013 15:02:01 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=etorok.net; s=MAILOUT; t=1369227722; bh=IZal/yS+FHHY04QNAAZRs8laSF470LRAYuGDT6qUI5g=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ck7Hu2zzIUXMx7LfwcknKJTQk7lhsY4wlLFX6QZ/d5VkxLhS4w+TyLf28QqREo5iu zUSH8QR4OoBMMSK0UsaR/vJRo6lVFOoK9ZpiTLN/mLhN6Iacr5SEtLHfZqueKp9YO8 OlmP0w6HJRIdDc84/ID623pnfP+5dpep5yJtcpHg= Message-ID: <519CC1C8.3060502@etorok.net> Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 16:02:00 +0300 From: =?UTF-8?B?VMO2csO2ayBFZHdpbg==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130518 Icedove/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list@inria.fr References: <20130522123427.GA1894@siouxsie> In-Reply-To: <20130522123427.GA1894@siouxsie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.8 at mail X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Licenses - Confusion 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. If you do not add the static linking exception then everyone using your library would have to release their source code too. (also depending on the LGPL version used it might be unclear whether static linking is a derived work or not). The LGPL requires people to allow relinking their applications with newer versions of your LGPL library. But OCaml has interface/implementation digests, and as such relinking with a newer version would simply fail. The only way to allow people to relink is to distribute the entire application's source code to allow people to recompile and relink with your LGPL library. So an OCaml library released under LGPL would be almost equivalent to a library release under GPL. The way around this is with that linking exception. If your library is under the GPL, or if you are writing an application as opposed to a library then this doesn't matter as the executable will always be a derived work and require people to release any source code they link it with. IANAL, so I may be wrong on this but this is what I understood from the wording of the linking exception and LGPL. Best regards, --Edwin