English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
ANN: Sexplib - library for S-expression conversions
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2005-11-09 (09:25)
From: skaller <skaller@u...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ANN: Sexplib - library for S-expression conversions
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 09:57 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 07:42:19PM +1100, skaller wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 13:29 -0500, Markus Mottl wrote:
> > 
> > > Sorry for the confusion, but I should have mentioned in my
> > > announcement that it is available under the LGPL including the special
> > > exception also employed by INRIA to work around the linking
> > > restrictions.  
> > 
> > 
> > I use the acronym
> > 
> > 	LGPLX
> > 
> > for that licence.
> What about LGPL-OCAML ? 

Fine by me, though I note that LGPL with linking exemption
need not be restricted to Ocaml: if others adopted this,
for example for C packages, the OCAML would be a misnomer.
OTOH LGPL-OCAML is more suggestive in the case of Ocaml

BTW: for Debian GPL and LGPL licences do not have to
be provided in full, since they're installed automatically
in /usr/share somewhere. It would be nice if LGPLX/LGPL-OCAML 
was treated the same way.

Although GODI cannot do it yet, eventually it would be nice
to be able to constrain and/or report licences when building
packages -- which requires a licencing system with centralised
licences with recognized keys and behaviour rules.

Maybe INRIA, Gerd and Sven can get together and agree on
an acronym, and also get the licence certified by OSS?

IMHO this licence is a pretty good compromise: it prevents
'closed source' being distributed fully closed, but it doesn't
prevent closed source being used to generate closed binaries,
nor does it prevent closed source being distributed along
with open source (provided that open source remains open).

AFAICS it only 'infects' sources if one derives from
a combination of the open and closed source, then the
closed sources must be opened.

John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net