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] MLGame library
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Brandon J. Van Every <vanevery@i...>
Subject: RE: [Caml-list] MLGame library
Sylvain LE GALL
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> >
> > This looks interesting.  I am disappointed, however, that you are
> > releasing it under the GPL.  This makes it unacceptable for
> > commercial
> > use.  Have you considered the LGPL, or do you strongly
> > object to that?
> GPL/LGPL is the same problem, if you don't include in LGPL an ocaml
> exception ( see the LGPL licence of ocaml itself ).

I don't understand what you're saying, so maybe you can clarify.

Here is my understanding of the LGPL.  Since ancient times, one has been
perfectly free to do whatever one likes *on top of* a LGPL library, i.e.
linking to it.  There is no 'exception' required, that's why it's the
LGPL not the GPL.  The only stipulation is you must redistribute the
source code *of the LGPL library* along with your proprietary stuff on
top of it.  Your proprietary stuff can be completely and utterly closed.

Now, how does OCaml create any complication with a LGPL licensed
library?  Surely OCamlSDL doesn't patch OCaml itself?  Nor MLGame?  And,
I would note that SDL and OCamlSDL are LGPL licensed.  So where is a
'licensing issue' coming from, except by choice of MLGame's authors?

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 (
Version: 6.0.693 / Virus Database: 454 - Release Date: 5/31/2004

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