Re: Objective Caml 2.03/4 released

From: Stefan Monnier (monnier+lists/caml/news/
Date: Mon Dec 06 1999 - 01:02:36 MET

From: "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+lists/caml/news/>
Subject: Re: Objective Caml 2.03/4 released
Date: 05 Dec 1999 19:02:36 -0500

>>>>> "skaller" == skaller <> writes:
> I've been working on a product using ocaml for some time,
> and I need to make money out of it. The new licence seems
> to preclude this, forcing me to give away my source.

I believe you've misunderstood the license. If you write code in O'Caml,
the license doesn't impose anything on your software's license. The
LGPL license on the runtime might force you to ensure that your program
is physically separate from the runtime so that the runtime can be replaced
by your customers if they so desire, but this says nothing about the
license under which your software is distributed.

If your software is a modification of O'Caml then indeed, the license might
impose restrictions, but it's only fair.

> for serious software development. No one can afford
> to develop a production quality software, and then
> be forced to give the it away.

The FSF, RedHat, Cygnus and others are proofs that your "no one"
is incorrect.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 02 2000 - 11:58:29 MET