On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 07:30:42AM +0100, Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote:
> 
> 
> > Regarding license ... I suppose LGPL could be fine.
> 
> The new "user code library" is a good idea, but GPL
> and LGPL are both bad ideas.

The best idea is to use the same licence the ocaml runtime currently
uses :

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).

As a special exception to the GNU Library General Public License, you
may link, statically or dynamically, a "work that uses the Library"
with a publicly distributed version of the Library to produce an
executable file containing portions of the Library, and distribute
that executable file under terms of your choice, without any of the
additional requirements listed in clause 6 of the GNU Library General
Public License.  By "a publicly distributed version of the Library",
we mean either the unmodified Library as distributed by INRIA, or a
modified version of the Library that is distributed under the
conditions defined in clause 3 of the GNU Library General Public
License.  This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons
why the executable file might be covered by the GNU Library General
Public License.

Anything less restrictive would not be usefull, since you link with the
ocaml runtime anyway.

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