Browse thread
QPL license issue on toplevel
- Zheng Li
[
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: | 2008-11-24 (16:28) |
From: | Zheng Li <zheng_li@u...> |
Subject: | QPL license issue on toplevel |
Dear list, I'm working towards a pure library version of the enhtop (an enhanced toplevel). I have some question about the toplevel's license of OCaml (QPL). IMHO, OCaml toplevel allows to dynamic load libraries that are distributed *independently* under other licenses (even GPL or proprietary ones). I'm not sure about the _official_ understanding to this, but I guess that loading in toplevel is considered as - end-user dynamic linking - or execution If we neither build the libraries and toplevel into one binary (via ocamlmktop) to distribute, nor do we wrap their source code as a bundle for delivery, we don't have to face any license issue. Is that correct? Then how about a library that explicitly calls some toplevel functions (e.g. Topmain.xxx). This might be considered as "intend to link with XXX", so must such a library be always released under QPL? (One counterexample might be camlp4, part of which calls toplevel functions and is released under LGPL, but it comes from the same team anyway ...) Another option (if I want to avoid QPL) is to use reflection, so that the library don't have to call toplevel functions explicitly, but it still requires to work inside a toplevel (or together with a toplevel library). However I doubt whether this trick (or say cheating) is considered valid. Any precedents? Thanks. -- Zheng