Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 09:21:23 GMT
Message-Id: <199912060921.JAA21287@toy.william.bogus>
From: William Chesters <williamc@dai.ed.ac.uk>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: Objective Caml 2.03/4 released
In-Reply-To: <3849537C.4595B14C@maxtal.com.au>
<3849537C.4595B14C@maxtal.com.au>
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.
IANAL but I don't think it does---you're in the same situation as with
many other software tools, not least gcc. Don't forget that Richard
\begin{ocker}pinko commie beardie\end{ocker} Stallman would rather you
used the GPL for libraries precisely because the LGPL doesn't have the
virality which he wants (and you object to).
FWIW I applaud the new licensing arrangements. They are quite simple
while respecting the concerns both of people who want to write
commercial code (with their nice free compiler ;) --- cf Clean) and of
the authors who want to be guaranteed credit for their great work.
> I think there is a gross misunderstanding of 'freedom'
> here. Do we want 'free software' to consist of a combination
> of code submitted by amateurs, and people employed by
> institutions, most of which are funded by theft (taxation)?
> Why are people that expect to work on software and actually
> get paid for it by the users, being discriminated against?
1) have a little think about that "institutional theft" jibe
(hint: what does the N in INRIA stand for?)
2) re amateur code, go and have a look round the internet sometime;
you will find there is quite a lot of it about nowadays
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 02 2000 - 11:58:29 MET