Browse thread
[Caml-list] Dynamically evaluating OCaml code
-
John Goerzen
- Vitaly Lugovsky
- Samuel Mimram
-
Basile Starynkevitch
-
Issac Trotts
- Dustin Sallings
-
Brian Hurt
- Oleg Trott
- Ville-Pertti Keinonen
-
John Goerzen
-
Markus Mottl
-
Richard Jones
-
Markus Mottl
- Jon Harrop
-
John Goerzen
- Jean-Marc EBER
-
Trevor Andrade
-
Gerd Stolpmann
- skaller
-
John Goerzen
-
Gerd Stolpmann
-
Christophe TROESTLER
-
Gerd Stolpmann
-
Christophe TROESTLER
- Brandon J. Van Every
- John Goerzen
- Jacques GARRIGUE
-
Christophe TROESTLER
-
Gerd Stolpmann
-
Christophe TROESTLER
- Matt Gushee
-
Gerd Stolpmann
- Benjamin Geer
-
Gerd Stolpmann
- skaller
-
Markus Mottl
- John Goerzen
- Jon Harrop
-
Richard Jones
- Fernando Alegre
- Jean-Marc EBER
- Kenneth Knowles
- Brian Hurt
- skaller
-
Markus Mottl
- Issac Trotts
- Basile Starynkevitch
-
Issac Trotts
- clement capel
- Jon Harrop
- Walid Taha
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | John Goerzen <jgoerzen@c...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] BSD vs. GPL |
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 12:38:08AM -0700, Brandon J. Van Every wrote: > Kenneth Knowles wrote: > > Brandon J. Van Every wrote: > > > I am not interested in Free Software as in 'free beer', I > > > am interested > > > as in 'free speech'. And FWIW I'm on the MIT/BSD side of > > > the debate. > > > > The primary motivation for much free software *is* FSF-style > > idealism. > > True. And I can't stand those people. Ah, so you wish that everyone that released Free software did so under a license that allow you to personally profit from it by including it in your vaporware games, while simultaneously reducing the rights of the people you give it to, compared to what the FSF-style authors gave out? I have no problem using BSD/MIT-licensed software. The software *I* write is *all* under the GPL, because I want to guarantee everyone the same rights to use, modify, and copy it, regardless of where or from whom they received it. If somebody wants to use my code in a commercial project, they are of course welcome to negotiate a different license for that with me. I'm not going to let them use it for free unless they comply with the GPL. It seems that you want to have your cake and eat it to. > Idealists think the programmer is supposed to contribute massive amounts > of time and money for the betterment of all mankind. (Remember, time == > money.) Pragmatists think the individual should contribute very little, You have managed to probably mischaracterize both positions to such an extent that your argument is worhless. To read about what you call the "idealists", please visit www.fsf.org/philosophy. As a hint, development methodology has nothing to do with it; freedoms do. > So, if nobody else is interested in OCaml package management on Windows > for now, don't be surprised that I don't volunteer to be the first upon > the sacrificial altar. I only do things on an as-needed basis. I'd be > happy to help if others have similar needs though. If you're writing commercial code, what use do you have for OCaml package management anyway? You'll just link all the packages in at build time. Package management is only useful for people that compile things from source. (OK, *marginally* for people that load libraries dynamically) -- John ------------------- 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