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 LAA18314; Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:38:53 +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 LAA18595 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:38:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from outbound28-2.lax.untd.com (outbound28-2.lax.untd.com [64.136.28.160]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i6D9cpSH005209 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:38:51 +0200 Received: from outbound28-2.lax.untd.com (smtp01.lax.untd.com [10.130.24.121]) by smtpout02.lax.untd.com with SMTP id AABARHMPBAETQ5CS for (sender ); Tue, 13 Jul 2004 02:38:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 1278 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2004 09:37:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vangogh) (66.42.36.130) by smtp01.lax.untd.com with SMTP; 13 Jul 2004 09:37:41 -0000 From: "Brandon J. Van Every" To: "caml" Subject: RE: [Caml-list] embedded OCaml Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 02:47:55 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <40F3A439.6030305@misys.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal X-ContentStamp: 11:5:3948552235 X-UNTD-OriginStamp: CI84cOLHFqh7Zd2QWkwvEFvwyO3T/pIsPQZphDk9MRgMIOdZrq+asFpbbQAwjISy X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 40F3ADAB.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; brandon:99 caml-list:01 brandon:99 gpl:01 lgpl:01 gpl:01 model:01 caml-list:01 alex's:01 bayesian:01 crap:01 crap:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 off-topic:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Benjamin Geer wrote: > Brandon J. Van Every wrote: > > GPL and LGPL are really bad news as far as commercial entities are > > concerned. > > This is (a) nonsense, since plenty of companies rely on the > GPL in order to make money, Let's keep this concrete. Show me OCaml companies making GPL money in whatever application domain, or any-other-language companies making making GPL money in embedded controllers. Where's the business model here? Show me the money. If GPL is working anywhere in the embedded market, why does it work? Why does it fail? How has it impacted the growth of a language community? > and (b) off-topic for this list. Please don't subject us > to yet another barrage of wildly misinformed anti-GPL FUD, > least of all on caml-list. I can see that you didn't accept my Preface, and I surmise you feel strongly about licensing issues. I'm not going to back down about discussing them in Alex's specific case, however. This is about what will grow OCaml in the embedded marketplace, and what won't. Instead of arguing with you, Benjamin, I'd rather ask Alex: - why have you opted against a more traditional proprietary license, for $XXXXXX, that gives full closed source proprietary control to the licensee? - why have you opted against a MIT style license? I'm interested in understanding your choices, not berating them. Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com Brand*n Van Every S*attle, WA Praise Be to the caml-list Bayesian filter! It blesseth my postings, it is evil crap! evil crap! evil crap! ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners