[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Brian Rogoff <bpr@b...> |
| Subject: | RE: [Caml-list] CDK license |
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Dave Berry wrote:
> > From: Sven LUTHER [mailto:luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr]
> > > I would encourage people to use an X/BSD-like license for code
> whereever
> > > possible. It saves you all this hassle with determining what is and
> is
> > > not allowed, and which code may be linked or distributed with which
> > > other code.
> >
> > Yes, including taking all your code, doing some modification
> > to it, and giving nothing back.
>
> Yes. If someone wishes to do that, they can. Most people will choose
> to make changes available, because it benefits them if the open source
> library grows. And if they don't, at least they are still using OCaml
> libraries, and increasing the usage of OCaml. To me, this far outweighs
> any disadvantage.
I agree with Dave here. Besides, I don't think the {L}GPL prevents you
from modifying code and giving nothing back. It just means you can't
distribute that code. You could always use it for in-house software,
right (caveat; I'm not a lawyer, etc.)?
Anyways, I've appended a part of the GNAT modified GPL which I snatched
from the GNU Ada compiler libraries, which may be of interest. Note the
part about generic instantiation, which would correspond to functor
instantiation for MLers. I think this is something like what Sven was
mentioning with respect to the LGPL earlier.
> If your main aim is to protect your code from unwanted use, then go
> ahead and use the GPL or LGPL. If your main aim is to get your code
> used as widely as possible, use a less restrictive license. Surely the
> aim of the CDK is to promote wide use, rather than to restrict it?
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
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.
-- Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--
-- GNAT LIBRARY COMPONENTS
--
--
--
-- G N A T . S P I T B O L . P A T T E R N S
--
--
--
-- S p e c
--
--
--
-- $Revision: 1.17 $
--
--
-- Copyright (C) 1997-1999 Ada Core Technologies, Inc. --
--
--
-- GNAT is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under --
-- terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Soft- --
-- ware Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later ver- --
-- sion. GNAT is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITH- --
-- OUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY --
-- or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License --
-- for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General --
-- Public License distributed with GNAT; see file COPYING. If not, write --
-- to the Free Software Foundation, 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, --
-- MA 02111-1307, USA. --
--
--
-- As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from this --
-- unit, or you link this unit with other files to produce an executable, --
-- this unit does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be --
-- covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not --
-- however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be --
-- covered by the GNU Public License. --
--
--
-- GNAT is maintained by Ada Core Technologies Inc (http://www.gnat.com). --
--
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr