the topic for generating db models sparked an interesting conversation about licenses in a commercial setting: [image] A library to generate models from a database? Ecosystem thanks papatango, to clarify - I respect the choice of license, I just provide my perspective In …

A library to generate models from a database? than to train newcomers and worry about people using the libraries “at arms length” this is a good LGPL is not GPL :wink: LGPL is a privative license (quite similar to Apache 2.0) there is no problem with it can be statically linked / compiled in…

It depends on what you mean by “there is no problem with it can be statically linked”, as the OP does not indicate whether he/she has a problem. There is a problem if you do not want a program statically linked to a LGPL library to be governed also by the LGPL. In particular section 6b of version …

LGPL is a privative license (quite similar to Apache 2.0) there is no problem with it can be statically linked / compiled in the same binary LGPL could not be more different from Apache :), it also cannot be statically linked and compiled in the same binary, for some additional references: …

it seems that Lwt also went through a change: [image] Lwt is now MIT-licensed Community By popular request, the license of Lwt is now MIT slight_smile Lwt was previously licensed under a combination of LGPL, a linking exception, and BSD, which could be confusing to deal w…

[image] mudrz: oteku: LGPL is a privative license (quite similar to Apache 2.0) there is no problem with it can be statically linked / compiled in the same binary LGPL could not be more different from Apache :), it also cannot be statically linked and compiled in the same binary, for some add…

To clarify what I mean by “cannot”: for all practical purposes, when distributing software (edited my original post), unless there is a static linking exception: you cannot statically link a LGPL library without needing to open source your code; (that’s also ignoring the weird conditions of provi…

[image] mudrz: (that’s also ignoring the weird conditions of providing instructions to users on how to replace statically linked libraries) According to GNU : If you statically link against an LGPLed library, you must also provide your application in an object (not necessarily source) format…

I’m not sure what these percentages are taken from, but they seem like reasonable numbers. I would note that people who are implementing open source libraries from within a company are probably only allowed to use permissive licenses, so the percentages might be skewed a bit. I would be curious to s…

From where is this table taken?

[image] yawaramin: So, I am reading this as saying that you just need to provide the intermediate compiled objects (.cmi, .cmo, etc.), not necessarily even any instructions on how to re-link them, although that should make the distribution foolproof. It’s not very practical. If the user is to…

LGPL licenses handling in OCaml

Ecosystem

mudrz December 13, 2020, 1:18pm 5

it seems that Lwt also went through a change:

Topic		Replies	Views
A library to generate models from a database? Ecosystem	18	1670	November 30, 2020
[Blog] Getting OCaml Through the Eye of a Needle Community blog	15	1505	May 25, 2024
Statically link an OCaml project with Docker and Alpine Ecosystem docker , help , static-link	13	2553	January 10, 2023
Dependency hell makes it difficult to use OCaml for meaningful work Ecosystem opam	30	1116	March 19, 2026
OCaml RFC#17: library linking proposal Ecosystem cross-compilation	26	2932	June 16, 2021

LGPL licenses handling in OCaml

Related topics