On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 12:07:42AM -0800, Tom wrote:
> I think it is great that enabling more widespread usage is
> high on the list of goals of the OCAML project.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the GPL license that GNAT is under is 
> considerably more restrictive than the LGPL license used by 
> OCAML.  Under the GPL license, you cannot incorporate any 
> GNAT source code into your code without redistributing your 
> code under the terms of the GPL.

Neither license will allow you to incorporate code from the library into
your code and distribute it without being covered under the GPL (or
LGPL).  The issue is how easy is it to _use_ the library in another
program.

The GNAT license allows executables to be freely made that use the
library though.  The LGPL does not allow this.  There is an extra burden
on the developer to make sure that users have the ability to change the
library.

For example:  Let's say I write a proprietary program foo and wish to
distribute it to my customers.  If the ocaml library is LGPL, I have to
distribute at least a .cma (or .cmxa) for my application so that the
recipient of my software can relink it with the library.

With the GNAT modified library, I can just distribute my program.  I
don't need to provide source, that is up to me.

It really is a matter of what Inria wants people to be able to do.

Dave Brown
-------------------
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