Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2001-11-11 (10:37)
From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@b...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml
On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Xavier Leroy wrote:
> > Yeah, this is a slightly misleading statement, unless the OCaml
> > development team has made a modification to the LGPL similar to what was
> > done for the Guile license, which is LGPL with one additional clause:
> > blanket linking is allowed for Guile. (OCaml dev team, is this also the
> > license under which the runtime exists?)
> We haven't yet modified the LGPL to remove these silly restrictions on
> linking with LGPL code, but plan to do so in the near future.  
> We'd be interested in examples of other software projects that did this.
> You mention Guile, however it seems to be under the (standard) GPL
> (not even LGPL).

GNAT,, also uses a modified standard GPL. They've been doing
it for a while, and they even have commercial customers. Here's the whole 
damned thing 
-- This is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under
-- terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software
-- Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later version.
-- This software 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. 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.

Why not just translate Ada jargon to OCaml and swipe this? 

-- Brian
Bug reports:  FAQ:
To unsubscribe, mail  Archives: