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 RAA24126; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 17:35:44 +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 RAA24198 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 17:35:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from shell5.ba.best.com (shell5.ba.best.com [206.184.139.136]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f58FZfn14335 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 17:35:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (bpr@localhost) by shell5.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.sh) with ESMTP id IAA07485; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 08:35:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 08:35:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Rogoff To: Sven LUTHER cc: Brian Rogoff , Dave Berry , reig@dcs.gla.ac.uk, caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] CDK license In-Reply-To: <20010608152720.D12090@lambda.u-strasbg.fr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Sven LUTHER wrote: > On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 09:24:12AM -0700, Brian Rogoff wrote: > > That's my take on it. Besides, if I use someone else's library in a > > commercial product, it seems that it would be in my best interests to > > contribute fixes and enhancements. That's why I don't mind an LGPL like > > Yes, that's the main point here. It would be in your best interrest and that > of the ocaml community as well. > > > approach which forces me to do so. What I don't want to do is to use > > someone's library for some data structure and then have *all* of my code > > forced to accept that license. > > The LGPL don't force you to do that, but i think many people think such, is it > not ? Yes, I'm not sure why. I also forget why ACT created the GNAT modified GPL instead of just using the Library GPL (which predates the Lesser GPL), it might have something to do with GNAT's generic instantiation scheme which is macro-like rather than shared. I could try asking Robert Dewar or Richard Kenner. > That's the main reason why it was created instead of just using the GPL > for libraries. Well, if I remember correctly it is intended for the case where there is already a competing library under another license. Otherwise, RMS would rather have you use the GPL. In fact, ACT releases it's XML libraries for Ada under the full GPL, not LGPL. I understand the motivation, but I side with Dave Berry on this one; its not worth it for many companies to change their business model just so that they can use a library. LGPL and GMGPL allow more companies to participate in the free software world and hopefully will allow them to slowly migrate over. -- Brian ------------------- 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