Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
[Caml-list] Announcing the OMake build system version 0.9.1
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Jacques GARRIGUE <garrigue@k...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Announcing the OMake build system version 0.9.1
From: skaller <skaller@users.sourceforge.net>
> On Mon, 2004-09-06 at 21:34, Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> > From: skaller <skaller@users.sourceforge.net>
> 
> > Or will you tell me that using gnu make forces me to put all my software
> > under the GPL!
> 
> I have no idea -- that's the point. My guess is the license
> is unenforcible because it depends on terms such as 
> 'linkage' which can't be well defined in a unique way.
> 
> The only way acceptable to a court would be 'community
> consensus' about what constitues linkage.
> 
> I believe most people believe that
> at the moment static linkage to even LGPL (without Ocaml
> exemption) infects, but dynamic linkage doesn't.
> 
> Given such an absurd distinction I doubt I have any
> real idea what the GPL actually says for more
> difficult cases.

1) this is not a problem of infection, but of right to do something or
   not.
   And the problem with the LGPL is not a problem of linkage (LGPL
   puts no restriction on the linkage itself), but that there are
   conditions in the LGPL which are difficult to fulfill without
   dynamic linking (difficult - not impossible).

2) the point I was trying to make was that the distinction between
   static and dynamic linkage is not relevant here, since the tool 
   discussed does not link to anything anyway.

Or do you just mean that since linkage has not been tested before the
courts, it may mean just anything, including everything present on the
same hard disk?
An ambiguity is only a problem if you happen to be in the ambiguous
area. I do not see how it can matter when you are well outside of it.

(My last answer, this discussion is getting completely ridiculous)

Jacques Garrigue

-------------------
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