English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
[Caml-list] MLGame library
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2004-06-10 (01:02)
From: Brandon J. Van Every <vanevery@i...>
Subject: RE: [Caml-list] MLGame library
Karl Zilles wrote:
> Well, they changed the LGPL a while back to make it a little more
> complicated.  Not only do you have to distribute the source of the
> library you changed, but you also have to distribute *your
> object code*
> in a way that someone can then modify the LGPL library and relink it
> with the code you have written, creating a new executable.  I'm
> paraphrasing, but I think that's what it boils down to roughly.
> It's not the worst thing imaginable, but it dulls any interest many
> commercial developers might have in using an LGPL'd library.  The
> 'exception' that he's talking about removes this additional
> requirement, making it as you originally describe.

I was unaware of this.  I'll have to study up on that.

> Xavier will undoubtable be pleased to see another licensing
> discussion
> on the list.  The way these things usually work out, someone
> will soon
> suggest that a 'BSD' license is really the way to go, then we'll see
> about 30 rabid posts arguing the situation from both sides, repeating
> the same arguments that they did 3 months ago when it last broke out.

Looking back, I see I was a part of those threads.  Frankly, I could
care less how people want to license their own software.  I'm only
interested in whether the MLGame people have considered the LGPL, a
license that's potentially useful to me.  I find that a lot of people
who release their first cut of something as GPL, simply haven't thought
through the commercial implications.  They can often be persuaded to
change to LGPL on the grounds of greater utility to a larger audience.
But if they have thought it through and aren't interested, so be it.  No
big deal.  Not everybody's interested in commercial stuff.

What gets me riled up is the zealousy of a lot of people in the GPL
camp.  Charges of MIT / BSD "evil profiteers," "you're just here to rip
us off," "all software should be free," "the contractual service model
is the only valid business model," etc.  I don't respect that kind of
thinking, any more than I respect people who think property rights
shouldn't exist.  Far too many MIT / BSD style projects have proven that
open source under that model works just fine, is enlightened, provides
people with real benefit, is not inequitable, etc.  It all depends on
whether you're into idealistic theory, or what works out in pratice.  My
own idealism is tempered by pragmatism.  I don't like extreme idealists
who are not so tempered.

Cheers,                         www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every               Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.693 / Virus Database: 454 - Release Date: 5/31/2004

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