On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Patrick M Doane wrote:

>   "The LGPL puts no restrictions at all on programs linked with LGPL-ed
> libraries. Thus, users are free to distribute (or not) OCaml-generated
> binaries under whatever conditions they like."
> 
> >From my reading of the LGPL, which seems to correspond with the opinions
> of others on the list, this just isn't true. 

 Please, read it again. Carefully.

> If I develop an application
> with OCaml, I must distribute that application with source code. 

 No. You must distribute a runtime source or just put a link how to get
it. Nothing more. There are a lot of commercial, closed source 
applications linked with LGPL libraries - e.g. any Linux commercial
apps linked with GNU Libc.

> This isn't acceptable for commercial development

 It IS acceptable. But here, I think, it's offtopic. Read slashdot, and so 
on. Look at WineX, for example: open source, commercial binaries.

-------------------
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