I have resent the original message. :)

I would be happy to discuss this further with yourself and/or 
Nicolas... although off-list might be a better venue, since licensing 
discussions are not always well-received here.

Harry Chomsky wrote:

> Oh goodness...  I'm afraid your question about the license got lost from 
> my Inbox when I cleaned out all my Caml-related stuff last year.  I'm 
> sorry I never answered you!
> 
> I haven't taken any time to think about or work on OCaml-Win32 since 
> then, but I made Nicolas an administrator of the SourceForge project and 
> hoped that he could keep things moving.  I actually don't have strong 
> opinions about the best license for this project.  Nicolas, do you think 
> there is an advantage (or disadvantage) to changing the license to "LPGL 
> + linking exception", as Robert requests?  If you both agree that that 
> would be better, I would be happy to reissue the code with that change 
> in the license.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Roessler" <roessler@rftp.com>
> To: "Caml-list" <caml-list@inria.fr>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 1:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocamlopt and *using* DLLs
> 
> 
>> Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
>>
>>>>> You can have a look at the OCaml Win32 API library Makefile that have
>>>>> different ways of building and linking it
>>>>> (http://ocaml-win32.sourceforge.net/).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is actually funny - about a year and a half ago, when I was first
>>>> looking at OCaml, I corresponded with Harry Chomsky and pointed out a
>>>> bug in the makefile being distributed with this project - having to do
>>>> with [not] defining CAML_DLL! :)
>>>>
>>>> I also contributed a small amount of code to the project, but ended up
>>>> not being able to use the "OCaml Win32 API" because of the license. :(
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Since then I had talk with Harry and I convince him that using LGPL 
>>> was the
>>> way to go. The API now is quite complete and usable.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for answering this, but I had asked him (Harry Chomsky) on
>> November 8, 2003 if he would consider the "OCaml special exception for
>> linking" so that his library's licensing terms would be more in line
>> with [some] other packages and OCaml itself... to date, my email has
>> not been answered.
>>
>> And I just checked the current "OCaml Win32" download, and it is as
>> you say above - LGPL (with no "OCaml linking exception").
>>
>> This is unfortunate, as I would like to both use *and* contribute to
>> this project... but, c'est la licensing disagreement. :)

Robert Roessler
roessler@rftp.com
http://www.rftp.com