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?


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