From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id VAA07215; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:25:20 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA11145 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:25:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail2.tpgi.com.au (mail.tpgi.com.au [203.12.160.58]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h8KJPH505307 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:25:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from 203-213-84-92-syd-ts16-2600.tpgi.com.au (203-213-84-92-syd-ts16-2600.tpgi.com.au [203.213.84.92]) by mail2.tpgi.com.au (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8KJP7aR008017; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 05:25:09 +1000 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Commercial application written in O'Caml: ExcelEverywhere From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@ozemail.com.au To: Richard Jones Cc: caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <20030919144920.GC4205@redhat.com> References: <3F6AB7CB.6020505@abc.se> <1063969848.27470.42.camel@pelican> <20030919144920.GC4205@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1064085899.2679.58.camel@pelican> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 21 Sep 2003 05:25:00 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Kaspersky-Antivirus: Passed X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ozemail:01 lgpl:01 lgpl:01 gpl:01 ffau:99 ffau:99 standardised:01 feared:01 hewlett:99 packard:99 gpl'd:01 gpl:01 litigation:99 ocaml:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Sat, 2003-09-20 at 00:49, Richard Jones wrote: > On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 09:10:49PM +1000, skaller wrote: > > Agree. Too many LGPL contributions, which I can't > > use in my open source project because it has a > > public domain licence -- I *desire* to encourage > > commercial use of my code: the more users the better. > > Are you sure LGPL is a problem in this case? LGPL is a great > compromise license because you get the changes to your library back, > but commercial (and other) users can always use the library. I prefer > it over GPL most of the time. Yes: LGPL is not a problem for Ocaml Standard Libraries. I am happy to require my clients to download and build the Ocaml standard distribution (or obtain some prebuilt version, eg for Windows). But I am not willing to require they download a fourth party library (unless it is in heavy use). In the case I need some library functionality, I have to take responsibility for it myself, and I can't do that for LGPL libraries because my sources are FFAU (free for any use). In particular FFAU permits a commercial developer to take my source codes -- including any included fourth party library -- and do whatever they want to with them (provided they don't lie about who is responsible). In particular, I would like my product to be ISO Standardised, and that requires unequivocable unencumberance: there is no way an ISO committee can standardise something they're not free to modify, and whose interface specification cannot be owned by ISO. In the case of C++, for example, a sort algorithm in STL had a performance requirement which some vendors feared would require using a particular patented algorithm (since it is the only sort known meeting the requirements). To proceed a letter was required from the patent owner relinquishing all ownership (the owner was Hewlett Packard and the permission was given). For this reason C++ boost required all contributions to be FFAU. In particular, LGPL codes were not acceptable. You will see then that I CANNOT make my codes LGPL, because 200 people might contribute, and it is very hard to get 200 people to all agree to a change of licence conditions :-) I can tell you my experience in commerical organisations is that whilst they're happy to use GPL'd products as tools in-house, they won't risk distributing anything with such a woefully complex licence as LGPL, no matter what the actual implications of the licence are, or are intended to be (unless they're very big and have lots of lawyers :-) I had this problem myself with Ocaml, where I was only using it to build a product to be sold (but that product would contain library codes from the standard distribution). That company didn't have any lawyers, and the issue was considered by a technical product manager who was a C++ devotee. As an example, they already used some open source code in their product, and modified it. No way it would make ANY sense at all to give back the changes, since they were related to their particular needs, and the result would not built without proprietary parts of their product. Had *that* library been LGPL, they would not have been able to use it. Whilst its doubtful GPL or any other software licence has any legal standard whatsoever, most companies don't want to risk litigation. They'd rather pay someone or someones to develop an equivalent they have unequivocable ownership of: this is true even if they're willing to make the sources publically available (they still have to sell the product built on those sources, and thus need to claim ownership thereof). There are exceptions, for example specialist open source companies such as RedHat or VA Linux. ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners