On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 08:53 +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 08:27:19AM +1000, skaller wrote:
> > Ocamlduce isn't a library, it's a tool -- with the same > > licence for its source as Ocaml. > > It also provides a library. In fact I had just last week a request > from an upstream author to package his software (which he intended to > licence under GPL). Unfortunately, he used the ocamlduce library. He > says that since he had been basing his project on ocamlduce from the start > it would be dificult to switch to something else now. He wasn't aware > of this licence problem, just trusting that he could use for his project > any libraries that were available in his working environment. > > That is exactly why I oppose to having this stuff in debian unless > they change the licence. The difference with ocaml is that libraries and > runtime system are LGPL, hence one can use ocaml for one's project and still > release under GPL. Ah, I see -- well, why not ask? CC'd this to Alain Frisch, lets see what he says.. -- John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net> Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
