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
[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: 2004-09-06 (01:04)
From: Brandon J. Van Every <vanevery@i...>
Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Announcing the OMake build system version 0.9.1
james woodyatt wrote:
> I'm not trying to argue for you to change the license.  I am
> not nearly
> enough of an egomaniac to believe that my declining to use your tool
> should be considered a "strong argument" for you to adopt a different
> license.

But what other argument could ever be made?  "Strength" of argument is
subjective for all parties, but the argument is inevitably stated in
terms of other people's needs and desires.  A dealbreaker is a

LGPL is more permissive than GPL, that much is clear.  It's all a
question of how much restriction you think is necessary for open source
to function in the manner you want.  I think the LGPL is more appealing
to people who think that some restrictions on commerce are a good idea,
but are more interested in commercial recombinative utility than FSF

I would note that GNU Make is GPLed and the vast majority of people just
use it, warts and all.  People with special anti-GPL build needs are a
special case.  Such people may create better build methodologies for us
someday, but in the present, GPLing a tool is not a barrier for the vast
majority of build tasks.

One of the few areas where I feel a GPL is acceptable and valid is for a
tool that's particularly cut-and-dried.  Why should I care if my paint
program is GPLed, for instance?  I just want to paint.  I'm not looking
for starter code for a commercial paint program.  Ironically, the GPL
defeats my freedom to recombine such code as I wish... the very thing
the GPL purports to protect!  But if I actually don't care about that
freedom, if I just want to use the tool rather than write a new tool,
GPL is fine.  Maybe I'd fix a bug because it's open source, but
otherwise, why do I care?

The only true freedom is putting the code in the public domain.  MIT/BSD
licenses are pretty darned close to that freedom.  The GPL is not a
'total freedom' license, but rather an 'anti-proprietary' license.  The
GPL philosophy is that proprietary code is Bad [TM].

Waiting for the flames to ensue, for having dared to discuss licenses,
even and despite having made points for all of the main open source
licenses.  Please, do flame away for adding an off-topic licensing
discussion to an already painfully long thread.  I'm sooooooo waiting to
hear how I'm the purveyor of Noise Pollution, in the AC/DC sense.  ;-)

Cheers,                         www.indiegamedesign.com
Brand*n Van Every               S*attle, WA

Praise Be to the caml-list Bayesian filter! It blesseth
my postings, it is evil crap!  evil crap!  Bigarray!
Unboxed overhead group!  Wondering!  chant chant chant...

Is my technical content showing?

// return an array of 100 packed tuples
  int $[tvar0][2*100]; // what the c function needs
  value $[tvar1]; // one int
  value $[tvar2]; // one tuple
  int $[tvar3] // loop control var
  $[lvar0] = alloc(2*100, 0 /*NB: zero-tagged block*/ );
  for(int $[tvar3]=0;$[tvar3]<100;$[tvar3]++) {
    $[tvar2] = alloc_tuple(2);
    $[tvar1] = Val_int($[cvar0][0+2*$[tvar3]]);
    $[tvar1] = Val_int($[cvar0][1]);

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