Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

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: 2004-09-07 (13:35)
From: David Brown <caml-list@d...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Announcing the OMake build system version 0.9.1
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 02:28:24AM +1000, skaller wrote:

> I believe most people believe that
> at the moment static linkage to even LGPL (without Ocaml
> exemption) infects, but dynamic linkage doesn't.
> Given such an absurd distinction I doubt I have any
> real idea what the GPL actually says for more
> difficult cases.

This distinction is not absurd, at all.  Dynamic linking allows the
recipient of a binary to easily replace the LGPL'd library (which is a
requirement of the LGPL).  With static linking, you have to distribute
objects, or a library consisting of the rest of the program.

I wasn't aware that the GPL allowed dynamic linking.  The only exception
granted is that, since the GPL only covers distribution, the user is free
to dynamic link whatever libraries they wish into the program.  The only
requirement the GPL makes is that these other libraries cannot be required
for normal operation.

But, yes, it starts to get kind of fuzzy when you move away from the C
notion of static and dynamic linking to other systems that differ
conceptually from what was thought of at the time the GPL and LGPL were
written.  Perhaps this is why the GPL-3 has never acheived a fixpoint :-)


To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: