Browse thread
[Caml-list] Announcing the OMake build system version 0.9.1
[
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: | 2004-09-06 (09:38) |
From: | skaller <skaller@u...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Announcing the OMake build system version 0.9.1 |
On Mon, 2004-09-06 at 12:35, Jacques GARRIGUE wrote: > Looks like you make the classical confusion: > 1) You have every right to use several (even incompatible) licenses in > the same distribution (ocaml does it). The only restriction is that > all code linked inside a GPLed tool must be provided under a > GPL-compatible license. > So I don't see how the fact a tool is distributed under the GPL could > limit your ability to use it (and improve it). > The only problem you might have is if you want to link omake itself > with an existing library, By resting on unsustainable technical distinctions, any usage is likely to expose the client to legal risk. What the heck does 'linkage' actually mean outside of a Unix based C environment? How is it possible that you can dlopen an GPL library without infection, but if you statically link you're infected? Who says running a mix of programs together 'linked' with shell script isn't linkage? What about Ocaml code 'linked' by ocamlopt as opposed to a bytecode version, use of DynLink, use of top level -- GAK! Its all too confusing to bother -- especially if you have to explain it all to your clients as well.. -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- 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