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] possible typechecker bug
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2003-09-20 (19:59)
From: skaller <skaller@o...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Commercial application written in O'Caml: ExcelEverywhere
On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 08:29, Oleg Trott wrote:
> On Friday 19 September 2003 07:10 am, skaller wrote:
> > Agree. Too many LGPL contributions, which I can't
> > use in my open source project because it has a
> > public domain licence -- I *desire* to encourage
> > commercial use of my code: the more users the better.
> Does it make sense to give your library a license any more permissive than 
> OCaml runtime (LGPL with static linking) ? Applications using your library 
> will have to use OCaml runtime anyway. The difference comes up only when the 
> user changes your library. On the other hand, having LGPL license may 
> encourage open-source advocates to contribute.

My work isn't a library, its a program. A compiler in fact.
When the client uses the compiler, they're using Ocaml run time,
but I don't provide it -- they have to download it themselves
and build the compiler using Ocaml. As such, my codes
can have any licence I want: Ocaml can surely be used
to build an run any program, no matter what the licence
of the sources of the program.

It is quite true that LGPL might encourage some people
to contribute. But it would discourage others. 

In particular, the product takes that woeful 
propietary system Java head on, and I do not
wish to alienate potential commerical users
by risking their enterprise  by preventing
them modifying my sources if necessary to adapt
to their requirements (or fix a bug).

I believe such users will contribute anyhow, without
any recourse to legalism, simply because cooperation
is in their own interest on this kind of product.

Note that my product *is* Open Source: I'd hope 
open source people will contribute even though it
is FFAU, rather than GPL -- I want
those people to be USERS of the system too,
and hope they'll contribute for the same reason
as commerical developers -- because it is in 
their own interest (and not some altruistic goal).

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: