On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 01:57:20PM -0600, Brian Hurt wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
> 
> > The best idea is to use the same licence the ocaml runtime currently
> > uses :
> 
> This is by far the best idea.  This means we don't have to relicense the 
> software to move it between the user library and the standard library.  
> Relicensing is a bitch, to put it simply.  If the two licenses are 
> congruent from day one, no relicensing is needed (and moving code is loads 
> easier).

:)))

> > The Library is distributed under the terms of the GNU Library General
> > Public License version 2 (found in /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2
> > on debian systems).
> > 
> 
> This argument would have convinced me to use a different license thant he 
> LGPL.

Huh ???

I just copied the licence from my debian package, i guess the important
part is the second paragraph. There was a huge discution about it here,
and even RMS gave its input and approval. Just check the mail archive of
it to see the argument, and maybe a reply from me to RMS where the
problem was resumed.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners