Browse thread
[Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml
[
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: | Sven <luther@d...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml |
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 12:58:30AM -0500, Patrick M Doane wrote: > On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Michael Welsh Duggan wrote: > > > Patrick M Doane <patrick@watson.org> writes: > > > > > OCaml doesn't provide support for shared libraries (although 3.03 does > > > provide some dynamic loading capabilities for bytecode only). So we > > > need to consider the portions of the license that apply for static > > > linking. The LGPL provides some rather contradictory statements in section > > > 6 regarding that: > > > > > > 1. you may also compile or link a "work that uses the Library" with the > > > Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and > > > distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the > > > terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and > > > reverse engineering for debugging such modifications. > > > > > > This clause is enough to throw out most commercial applications. It is > > > standard industry practice to disallow reverse engineering. Most software > > > companies are going to resist changing this - and for good reason too. > > > > That is section 1. Section 6 begins, "as an exception to the > > Sections above"... > > It's section 6. I extracted two sections from it (that I labeled 1 and 2). But apparently without reading it indepth, or at least understanding what it trully says. Friendly, Sven Luther ------------------- 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