RE: [Caml-list] CDK license

RE: [Caml-list] CDK license

[Dave Berry]

I would encourage people to use an X/BSD-like license for code whereever
possible.  This license allows anyone to do anything whatsoever with the
code, provided that they keep the copyright notice and NO WARRANTY
notice.  It saves you all this hassle with determining what is and is
not allowed, and which code may be linked or distributed with which
other code.

>From a practical point of view, it allows a commercial organisation to
redistribute the code, and to include it with other products.  Assuming
you want OCaml to be used as widely as possible, this would be a Good
Thing.  

I can understand why INRIA want the compiler itself to be under a more
restrictive license (although I still disagree with that decision).  For
libraries, the argument doesn't hold.  The main requirement is to get
them used as widely as possible, with as few restrictions as possible on
their use.


-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

Re: [Caml-list] CDK license

[Sven LUTHER]

On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 10:44:30AM +0100, Dave Berry wrote:
> I would encourage people to use an X/BSD-like license for code whereever
> possible.  This license allows anyone to do anything whatsoever with the
> code, provided that they keep the copyright notice and NO WARRANTY
> notice.  It saves you all this hassle with determining what is and is
> not allowed, and which code may be linked or distributed with which
> other code.

Yes, including taking all your code, doing some modification to it, and giving
noting back.

That is the nice advantage in using the LGPL over the BSD like licence, is
that altough you give your code away, you are guaranteed that if someone do
enhancement to it, he will give it back to the community, and not hoard it.

But then this is everyone's right to choose the code he wants, for myself, as
i don't really have much coding time, i prefer to go the GPL or LGPL way, and
if someone wants to take my code, and not contribute back any changes they do,
then by all means, they can pay me for a commercial licenced version, is it
not.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

Re: [Caml-list] CDK license

[Stefan Monnier]

>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Berry <Dave@kal.com> writes:
> I would encourage people to use an X/BSD-like license for code
> whereever possible.  This license allows anyone to do anything whatsoever
> with the code, provided that they keep the copyright notice and NO
> WARRANTY notice.  It saves you all this hassle with determining what is
> and is not allowed, and which code may be linked or distributed with which
> other code.

You seem to be talking about the original BSD license.  Note that in that
license, the requirement to keep the copyright notice makes it incompatible
with the GPL license (which is why there is a revised BSD license which
does away with the "keep the copyright notice" part).

This goes to show that using the old BSD license does not really save you
``from determining what is and is not allowed, and which code may be linked
or distributed with which other code.''


	Stefan
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

Re: [Caml-list] CDK license

[Jacques Garrigue]

From: "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+lists.caml/news/@rum.cs.yale.edu>
> >>>>> "Dave" == Dave Berry <Dave@kal.com> writes:
> > I would encourage people to use an X/BSD-like license for code
> > whereever possible.  This license allows anyone to do anything whatsoever
> > with the code, provided that they keep the copyright notice and NO
> > WARRANTY notice.  It saves you all this hassle with determining what is
> > and is not allowed, and which code may be linked or distributed with which
> > other code.
> 
> You seem to be talking about the original BSD license.  Note that in that
> license, the requirement to keep the copyright notice makes it incompatible
> with the GPL license (which is why there is a revised BSD license which
> does away with the "keep the copyright notice" part).

The X license does not contain that clause, so I suppose that by X/BSD
he meant the revised BSD license already, which is certainly the
most free license you can imagine, the next step being public domain.

I also like BSD very much, but using it requires everybody agreeing on
such a free license, while as Sven points out it includes the possibility
of non-cooperative behaviour.
LGPL was choosen for ocamlrun, to specifically forbid this. You can
include the ocaml runtime in an ocaml program, but you cannot make
modifications to it to serve a different purpose without publishing them.
As a result, it is used for everything else in the system, since any
executable will depend on parts of the ocaml runtime anyway.
(If it is switched to BSD someday, I'll certainly switch all my
libraries to BSD also, after checking with contributors. I would honestly
prefer it for simplicity.)

Yet, I think the LGPL is reasonably balanced. It tries to protect the
code itself (which BSD does not really), while not (much) restricting
its use.

The subtle part, as has already been discussed on this list, is
section 6 of the LGPL, about linking, which I reproduce below.
Outside of the problem that the condition may cause incompatibilities
with licenses of other libraries (if they prohibit reverse engineering
for instance), there is a difficulty with changes in the format of
.cmi or .cmx files between versions.
Basically, section 6 says that if you do not publish source code, then
when asked you should provide a link-kit for your program allowing to
rebuild the executable from modified versions of the runtime and
libraries protected by the LGPL.  But since almost every version of
ocaml has a different format for the .cmi, one reading would be that
you have to provide a link-kit for every new version of ocaml. This
seems utterly impractical. Writing it somewhere explicitly might be
useful. Something like: "The work in binary form described in section
6 is to be understood as compiled by a specific version of ocaml. You
are not liable to provide it for other versions." This looks like it
is already included in the provisions about changes in the text of the
interface, but the problem is that incompatibilities can be created
without changing the source code. (By the way I'm sure that nobody
ever produced such a link-kit. But did anybody distribute
closed-source caml software?)

Sven had also concerns with section 5, particularly about the use of
functors understood as derivative work. This may be related to the
problem with templates in C++. However, functors in caml do not imply
recompilation for each use, so I think this is not a problem. There is
also inlining, but ocaml does not do much more inlining than C, for
which it is considered OK. As a result I think that there is no real
need to explicitly say that ocaml linking is to be understood as
linking.

The GNAT approach which Brian presented, of taking the GPL but
allowing linking unconditionally, is more liberal than LGPL, and
avoids these problems.  You don't have to provide a link-kit for your
executable.
This would make things much simpler, but I'm not sure it covers the
original goal of using the GPL: wouldn't it allow one to include
modified versions of the runtime in an executable, without publishing
the changes?

Regards,

Jacques Garrigue

----------
Extract from LGPL version 2

  6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also compile or
link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a
work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work
under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit
modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse
engineering for debugging such modifications.

  You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the
Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by
this License.  You must supply a copy of this License.  If the work
during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the
copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference
directing the user to the copy of this License.  Also, you must do one
of these things:

    a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding
    machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever
    changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under
    Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if the work is an executable linked
    with the Library, with the complete machine-readable "work that
    uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so that the
    user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified
    executable containing the modified Library.  (It is understood
    that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the
    Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application
    to use the modified definitions.)

    b) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at
    least three years, to give the same user the materials
    specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more
    than the cost of performing this distribution.

    c) If distribution of the work is made by offering access to copy
    from a designated place, offer equivalent access to copy the above
    specified materials from the same place.

    d) Verify that the user has already received a copy of these
    materials or that you have already sent this user a copy.

  For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the
Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for
reproducing the executable from it.  However, as a special exception,
the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally
distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major
components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on
which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies
the executable.

  It may happen that this requirement contradicts the license
restrictions of other proprietary libraries that do not normally
accompany the operating system.  Such a contradiction means you cannot
use both them and the Library together in an executable that you
distribute.

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

Re: [Caml-list] CDK license

[Joerg Czeranski]

Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >>>>> "Dave" == Dave Berry <Dave@kal.com> writes:
> > I would encourage people to use an X/BSD-like license for code
> > whereever possible.  This license allows anyone to do anything whatsoever
> > with the code, provided that they keep the copyright notice and NO
> > WARRANTY notice.  It saves you all this hassle with determining what is
> > and is not allowed, and which code may be linked or distributed with which
> > other code.
>
> You seem to be talking about the original BSD license.  Note that in that
> license, the requirement to keep the copyright notice makes it incompatible
> with the GPL license (which is why there is a revised BSD license which
> does away with the "keep the copyright notice" part).

No, the "revised" BSD license (BSD license without advertising clause)
removes the condition that you have to state "this product contains
source code of Stefan Monnier".  Especially for huge software products
like the *BSD operating systems this clause became unweildy.

Keeping the copyright/license notice is probably the only thing that's
required by all licenses.

(I might have misunderstood you though, but I'd like to make this point
clear for the benefit of those who don't know the BSD license.)

> This goes to show that using the old BSD license does not really save you
> ``from determining what is and is not allowed, and which code may be linked
> or distributed with which other code.''

That's certainly true, you always have to read licenses and understand
their legal implications.  It's just much easier to read and understand
the 20 lines of the BSD license than the endless pages of the GPL or
the LGPL.

jörg

P.S.: I also don't like the ideology behind the GPL, but that's
      a different matter.
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

Re: [Caml-list] CDK license

[Sven LUTHER]

On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 10:25:40AM +0900, Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> Basically, section 6 says that if you do not publish source code, then
> when asked you should provide a link-kit for your program allowing to
> rebuild the executable from modified versions of the runtime and
> libraries protected by the LGPL.  But since almost every version of
> ocaml has a different format for the .cmi, one reading would be that
> you have to provide a link-kit for every new version of ocaml. This

No, there is nothing forcing you to be able to link the program in something
else than with the same version of the compiler, since anyway, all the older
versions of the compiler are still available.

The only problem that you could encounter here is when the library is changed
so as to not being able to build with the older version of the compiler. But
again, this is no problem, after all, the LGPLed just guarantee you that you
can apply any bugfix you want to the library and then rebuild the program. Not
that it will be adapted to the very last compiler around.

> Sven had also concerns with section 5, particularly about the use of
> functors understood as derivative work. This may be related to the
> problem with templates in C++. However, functors in caml do not imply
> recompilation for each use, so I think this is not a problem. There is
> also inlining, but ocaml does not do much more inlining than C, for
> which it is considered OK. As a result I think that there is no real
> need to explicitly say that ocaml linking is to be understood as
> linking.

The only problem for doing such is if you want to release a binary only
vcersion of your program, without providing the object files for doing so. I
think the LGPL don't even call for a working makefile or other binding
instructions, but i may be wrong here.

Anyway, this could be solved by using the part of article 6) where you provide
to download them from a net site, or to send it to the user who needs it by
snail mail or such.

> The GNAT approach which Brian presented, of taking the GPL but
> allowing linking unconditionally, is more liberal than LGPL, and
> avoids these problems.  You don't have to provide a link-kit for your
> executable.
> This would make things much simpler, but I'm not sure it covers the
> original goal of using the GPL: wouldn't it allow one to include
> modified versions of the runtime in an executable, without publishing
> the changes?

The main reason for this restriction is for people who make changes to the
library, and then don't want to release them. If you allow linking, they would
just put the changes in some wrapper module, and then distribute that as
closed source. But i don't think this can be avoided unless you ressort to the
full GPL anyway. This is a question of 'bonne volontee' of the part of the
user of the library. But i don't really see, in the case of ocaml anyway, why
someone could be interrested in keeping such changes secret.

Also, i want to say something, i hope nobody misunderstood me in these mails,
i don't want to force anyone to use any kind of licence, it never even crossed
my mind, and i have no such right, please if somone feeled as such, it is not
what i wanted to say. I just wanted to point out what was my feeling about the
LGPL with ocaml usage, not force anyone.

Anyway, nobody has yet tyaken the LGPL or the GPL to court, and i don't think
any of the ocaml library authors would resort to such measures.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

Re: [Caml-list] CDK license

[Brian Rogoff]

On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 09:24:12AM -0700, Brian Rogoff wrote:
> > That's my take on it. Besides, if I use someone else's library in a
> > commercial product, it seems that it would be in my best interests to
> > contribute fixes and enhancements. That's why I don't mind an LGPL like 
> 
> Yes, that's the main point here. It would be in your best interrest and that
> of the ocaml community as well.
> 
> > approach which forces me to do so. What I don't want to do is to use
> > someone's library for some data structure and then have *all* of my code 
> > forced to accept that license.
> 
> The LGPL don't force you to do that, but i think many people think such, is it
> not ? 

Yes, I'm not sure why. I also forget why ACT created the GNAT modified GPL 
instead of just using the Library GPL (which predates the Lesser GPL), it 
might have something to do with GNAT's generic instantiation scheme which
is macro-like rather than shared. I could try asking Robert Dewar or
Richard Kenner. 

> That's the main reason why it was created instead of just using the GPL
> for libraries.

Well, if I remember correctly it is intended for the case where there is
already a competing library under another license. Otherwise, RMS would 
rather have you use the GPL. In fact, ACT releases it's XML libraries for 
Ada under the full GPL, not LGPL. I understand the motivation, but I side 
with Dave Berry on this one; its not worth it for many companies to change 
their business model just so that they can use a library. LGPL and GMGPL 
allow more companies to participate in the free software world and
hopefully will allow them to slowly migrate over. 

-- Brian


-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

Re: [Caml-list] CDK license

[Sven LUTHER]

On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 09:24:12AM -0700, Brian Rogoff wrote:
> > If your main aim is to protect your code from unwanted use, then go
> > ahead and use the GPL or LGPL.  If your main aim is to get your code
> > used as widely as possible, use a less restrictive license.  Surely the
> > aim of the CDK is to promote wide use, rather than to restrict it?
> 
> That's my take on it. Besides, if I use someone else's library in a
> commercial product, it seems that it would be in my best interests to
> contribute fixes and enhancements. That's why I don't mind an LGPL like 

Yes, that's the main point here. It would be in your best interrest and that
of the ocaml community as well.

> approach which forces me to do so. What I don't want to do is to use
> someone's library for some data structure and then have *all* of my code 
> forced to accept that license.

The LGPL don't force you to do that, but i think many people think such, is it
not ? That's the main reason why it was created instead of just using the GPL
for libraries.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

Re: [Caml-list] CDK license

[Sven LUTHER]

On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 11:24:57AM +0100, Dave Berry wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sven LUTHER [mailto:luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr]
> > > I would encourage people to use an X/BSD-like license for code
> whereever
> > > possible. It saves you all this hassle with determining what is and
> is
> > > not allowed, and which code may be linked or distributed with which
> > > other code.
> > 
> > Yes, including taking all your code, doing some modification 
> > to it, and giving nothing back.
> 
> Yes.  If someone wishes to do that, they can.  Most people will choose
> to make changes available, because it benefits them if the open source
> library grows.  And if they don't, at least they are still using OCaml
> libraries, and increasing the usage of OCaml.  To me, this far outweighs
> any disadvantage.

But, for example, they were changes to mlgtk, some widget bindings and such,
which never did make it back to the main tree. This is not good.

And you don't notice it more, because most if not all ocaml developper are
goodwilled and give the changes they make back to the community. But this may
change in the future, i think.

Now, i understand there is a difference in this between for example the ocaml
consortium or the ocaml team, which may be willing to give the kind of rigth
that comes with the BSD licence, since anyway, their interrest is to promote
the ocaml useage, and they have at least some manpower to put fulltime into
this. But for more smallish project an GPLed approach would be better i think.

Again this is up to every author, who may be wanting to do what he wants with
his code, even release it under dual or mutliple licence (like the Qt library
which is released under both the GPL and the QPL licence).

> > If someone wants to take my code, and not contribute back any 
> > changes they do, then by all means, they can pay me for a commercial 
> > licenced version.
> 
> This is unlikely to happen, although it depends on the terms you offer.
> For one thing, the extra expense in negotiating the contract will put
> many people off.  If you require a run-time, per-installation, license,

Sure, but if they don't want to go that route, they simply release any change
to the library they make and keep private their own program. This is only
fear, don't you think ? If they want more they should go the expensive way.

Anyway, this is how _I_ feel, and since i am not really writting much code
right now, this is not really that important.

Also there are many ways to negotiating this with indivuidual authors that
don't have the expense of full contracts between big companies.

> the extra cost may prevent someone from using the code.  This actually
> happened with MLWorks -- the license of SML/TK required a run-time cost
> that we simply couldn't afford.

Too bad for them.

> For the CDK, the situation is even more complex.  There are many
> authors, of many separate packages.  Negotiation and license
> arrangements could be hideously complex.  This could encourage people to
> develop their own counterparts, which would be a Bad Thing.

Yes i understand that, but anyway, most part of it come under the BSd or LGPL
licence, none of these hinder any commercial useage of it, apart from the
static linking clause anyway, so where is the problem with it. Unless they
misunderstand it, that is, or have some ideological or prejudiced oposition to
it that is, which i am aware may be a problem, but i think any people going
the ocaml route is bright enough to be able to look past that to the real
meaning and problems of these licences, is it not ?

Do you really think someone may want more right to the CDK than that ? Sure it
would be simpler if the CDK would be one only licence, but you cannot force
people to change their licence, they may be willing to do it though.

> If your main aim is to protect your code from unwanted use, then go
> ahead and use the GPL or LGPL.  If your main aim is to get your code
> used as widely as possible, use a less restrictive license.  Surely the
> aim of the CDK is to promote wide use, rather than to restrict it?

No, you confound the GPL and the LGPL, there is nothing more restrictive in
using the LGPL for your code than the BSD, nothing at least that would benefit
the ocaml community right now. If Some company wants to be able to take the
code, make some modifications to it, and don't release it, how will this be a
benefit for the ocaml community ?

And remember, the LGPL (and the GPl, by the way) only force you to release
source to your modifications, if you _distribute_ it, and even then, you are
only forced to give it to the person you distribute it to.

So for most closed source developpment, which mostly will be only internal or
to a limited set of clients, this is no major problem, don't you think.

Disclaimer :

Anything i wrote above is only my personal opinion, and is not intended to be
taken as more than a friendly conversation on this topic, in particular, i
don't want that anyone should feel forced or obligated by anything i mayt say
here. I guess you are all old enough to form your own opinion anyway.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

RE: [Caml-list] CDK license

[Brian Rogoff]

On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Dave Berry wrote:
> > From: Sven LUTHER [mailto:luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr]
> > > I would encourage people to use an X/BSD-like license for code
> whereever
> > > possible. It saves you all this hassle with determining what is and
> is
> > > not allowed, and which code may be linked or distributed with which
> > > other code.
> > 
> > Yes, including taking all your code, doing some modification 
> > to it, and giving nothing back.
> 
> Yes.  If someone wishes to do that, they can.  Most people will choose
> to make changes available, because it benefits them if the open source
> library grows.  And if they don't, at least they are still using OCaml
> libraries, and increasing the usage of OCaml.  To me, this far outweighs
> any disadvantage.

I agree with Dave here. Besides, I don't think the {L}GPL prevents you
from modifying code and giving nothing back. It just means you can't
distribute that code. You could always use it for in-house software,
right (caveat; I'm not a lawyer, etc.)? 

Anyways, I've appended a part of the GNAT modified GPL which I snatched
from the GNU Ada compiler libraries, which may be of interest. Note the
part about generic instantiation, which would correspond to functor
instantiation for MLers. I think this is something like what Sven was 
mentioning with respect to the LGPL earlier.  

> If your main aim is to protect your code from unwanted use, then go
> ahead and use the GPL or LGPL.  If your main aim is to get your code
> used as widely as possible, use a less restrictive license.  Surely the
> aim of the CDK is to promote wide use, rather than to restrict it?

That's my take on it. Besides, if I use someone else's library in a
commercial product, it seems that it would be in my best interests to
contribute fixes and enhancements. That's why I don't mind an LGPL like 
approach which forces me to do so. What I don't want to do is to use
someone's library for some data structure and then have *all* of my code 
forced to accept that license.

-- Brian


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--
--                         GNAT LIBRARY COMPONENTS
--
--
--
--                G N A T . S P I T B O L . P A T T E R N S
--
--
--
--                                 S p e c
--
--
--
--                            $Revision: 1.17 $
--
--
--           Copyright (C) 1997-1999 Ada Core Technologies, Inc.            --
--
--
-- GNAT is free software;  you can  redistribute it  and/or modify it under --
-- terms of the  GNU General Public License as published  by the Free Soft- --
-- ware  Foundation;  either version 2,  or (at your option) any later ver- --
-- sion.  GNAT is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITH- --
-- OUT ANY WARRANTY;  without even the  implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY --
-- or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU General Public License --
-- for  more details.  You should have  received  a copy of the GNU General --
-- Public License  distributed with GNAT;  see file COPYING.  If not, write --
-- to  the Free Software Foundation,  59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, --
-- MA 02111-1307, USA.                                                      --
--
--
-- As a special exception,  if other files  instantiate  generics from this --
-- unit, or you link  this unit with other files  to produce an executable, --
-- this  unit  does not  by itself cause  the resulting  executable  to be --
-- covered  by the  GNU  General  Public  License.  This exception does not --
-- however invalidate  any other reasons why  the executable file  might be --
-- covered by the  GNU Public License.                                      --
--
--
-- GNAT is maintained by Ada Core Technologies Inc (http://www.gnat.com).   --
--
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

RE: [Caml-list] CDK license

[Dave Berry]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sven LUTHER [mailto:luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr]
> > I would encourage people to use an X/BSD-like license for code
whereever
> > possible. It saves you all this hassle with determining what is and
is
> > not allowed, and which code may be linked or distributed with which
> > other code.
> 
> Yes, including taking all your code, doing some modification 
> to it, and giving nothing back.

Yes.  If someone wishes to do that, they can.  Most people will choose
to make changes available, because it benefits them if the open source
library grows.  And if they don't, at least they are still using OCaml
libraries, and increasing the usage of OCaml.  To me, this far outweighs
any disadvantage.

> If someone wants to take my code, and not contribute back any 
> changes they do, then by all means, they can pay me for a commercial 
> licenced version.

This is unlikely to happen, although it depends on the terms you offer.
For one thing, the extra expense in negotiating the contract will put
many people off.  If you require a run-time, per-installation, license,
the extra cost may prevent someone from using the code.  This actually
happened with MLWorks -- the license of SML/TK required a run-time cost
that we simply couldn't afford.

For the CDK, the situation is even more complex.  There are many
authors, of many separate packages.  Negotiation and license
arrangements could be hideously complex.  This could encourage people to
develop their own counterparts, which would be a Bad Thing.

If your main aim is to protect your code from unwanted use, then go
ahead and use the GPL or LGPL.  If your main aim is to get your code
used as widely as possible, use a less restrictive license.  Surely the
aim of the CDK is to promote wide use, rather than to restrict it?

Dave.
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

Re: [Caml-list] CDK license

[Sven LUTHER]

On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 09:36:58AM +0100, reig@dcs.gla.ac.uk wrote:
> There is now a FAQ list about the GNU licences.
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html
> 

Sure, i know about it, altough i have not read it fully.

Does it say anything which may be usefull to the LGPL + ocaml question ?

 From a quick glance, it appears that this is not the case.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

Re: [Caml-list] CDK license

[reig]

There is now a FAQ list about the GNU licences.

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html

Fermin

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

Re: [Caml-list] CDK license

[Sven LUTHER]

On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 09:05:26AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 01:05:00AM +0000, rbw3@cet.nau.edu wrote:
> > 
> > If my understanding is correct, the CDK library being under GPL is
> > different then what you think. All that means it that the tools that they
> > use to put the library together are GPL, not that the software you develop
> > with the CDK is GPL.
> > 
> > A huge example of this is the GCC suite.
> 
> No, it is not, since the CDK contains a bunch of libraries, which have to be
> linked with the code, and as thus make the final product GPled also.
> 
> While gcc does not such thing, only process the code.
> 
> There could be an analogy with glibc though, which is GPLed.

Err sorry, the glibc is naturally LGPLed. the LGPL was coined for it after
all, but later on, RMS changed the name of it from GNU Library Public Licence
to Leaser GNU Public Licence, and discourages it's use.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

Re: [Caml-list] CDK license

[Sven LUTHER]

On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:11:56PM -0700, Brian Rogoff wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2001, Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> > On the same line of thought, the ocaml compiler is released under the
> > QPL, which is not compatible with the GPL.
> > This means that you cannot build a toplevel including any library
> > under the GPL, since it would be in contradiction with either of the
> > two licenses.
> > At the very least, it seems necessary to add a clause to the GPL,
> > saying that linking to QPLed libraries is allowed, just as RMS himself
> > suggested for KDE software.
> 
> At this point, I'd suggest that we _really_ need to consult a lawyer who
> is familiar with intellectual property law and the GPL. 

First, i am no lawyer, but as debian developper, and packager of ocaml and
some other ocaml stuff for debian, i have been exposed to this kind of stuff a
lot, so here is my opinion on it.

> As far as libraries go, I think the LGPL is a fair compromise between the 
> really dedicated RMS followers (once affectionately referred to as
> "license ayatollahs" on this very list :) and those who are willing to
> tolerate a variety of kinds of software, including proprietary. I
> understand the reasons for going GPL instead of LGPL ("resistance is
> futile, prepare to be assimilated, or don't use this code") but if it's 
> going to be that way then I don't want my Consortium dues to fund work
> on the CDK. 

Yes, the LGPL is a good choice, but still it has some problems with regard to
ocaml programs/libraries.

I think the important part is article 5. of the LGPL :

------------------------------------------------------------------
  5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the
Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or
linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library".  Such a
work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and
therefore falls outside the scope of this License.

  However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library
creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it
contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the
library".  The executable is therefore covered by this License.
Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables.

  When a "work that uses the Library" uses material from a header file
that is part of the Library, the object code for the work may be a
derivative work of the Library even though the source code is not.
Whether this is true is especially significant if the work can be
linked without the Library, or if the work is itself a library.  The
threshold for this to be true is not precisely defined by law.

  If such an object file uses only numerical parameters, data
structure layouts and accessors, and small macros and small inline
functions (ten lines or less in length), then the use of the object
file is unrestricted, regardless of whether it is legally a derivative
work.  (Executables containing this object code plus portions of the
Library will still fall under Section 6.)

  Otherwise, if the work is a derivative of the Library, you may
distribute the object code for the work under the terms of Section 6.
Any executables containing that work also fall under Section 6,
whether or not they are linked directly with the Library itself.
------------------------------------------------------------------

What all this is about is that you can do dynamic linking with the library and
not release your program source code.

That said, ocaml is not a dynamic linking language yet, and as such i don't
know up to what point the :

  only numerical parameters, data structure layouts and accessors, and small
  macros and small inline functions (ten lines or less in length).

Could be related to the way ocaml uses modules and do linking. Could someone
more familiar with the ocaml binaries internal give more light here ?

Now, there are 2 possibilities :

  1) We consider that the ocaml modules and linking stuff is considered such as
     Article 5 requires. Then there is no problem, and we can use the LGPL
     without major problem. But it would be nicer, when giving a LGPL license
     to your code, to make it clear that we consider it as such, saying for
     example :

     "This code is covered by the LGPL. Notice that we consider the ocaml
     linking and modules hadnling as consisting of only numerical ..."

   2) Ocaml linking is more than just the above. Then you can still solve it
      by :

     2.1) state in the license that you make an exception for ocaml linking,
     something like :

     "This code is covered by the LGPL with the additional permision that you
     may use the object file in an unrestricted manner, when linking to other
     ocaml objects."
     
     2.2) comply with article 6 a), which says that you must also provide a
     complete machine readeable version of your program (the .cm* files) so
     that the user can modify the library and relink the program with the
     modified library. Now you don't need to distribute the files, you can
     resort to make them available (for at least 3 years) in either a
     downloadeable place, or in sending it for a cgharge no more than the cost
     of distirbution to anyone who request it. 


And naturaly, don't forget that you can issue any code with any number of
licences that you want, provided _all_ the authors agree on it. If you plan to
do so, best is to check with the consent of anyone who makes contributions to
your work, before integrating the patches. Or keep a dual source tree, as was
done with mozilla/netscape and some others.

Ok, that is most of what i have read from the LGPL stuff, and which applies to
ocaml. 

> > Another remark is that lablgtk-1.2.0 contains a COPYING file, saying
> > that the library itself is LGPL, examples are more or less public
> > domain, and applications are _not_ open source. Claiming that all this
> > is GPL is clearly wrong. This COPYING is not there, and no README file
> > either, which is the only documentation for lablgtk :-)
> > 
> > (This is not a rant: I am the one who didn't check)

erm, ...

1) about the public domain examples, best would be to add a COPYING file there
stating it, because public domain is less restrictive than the LGPL.

2) about the application not being open source, what are they. I cannot
possibly continue to include them in the debian package if their license
situation is not clarified. Will they come under a closed source licence ? If
yes, why, does it make any sense to do so ?

3) IANAL, but it seems to me that since you shipped lablgtk claiming that all
of it is LGPLed, at least the versions that where such released are released
under the LGPL, you cannot go back. You can change the licence though, but i
guess anyone could continue work on the LGPLed version of it. I could be
speaking nonsense though, i did not check the exact wording of it.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

Re: [Caml-list] CDK license

[Sven LUTHER]

On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 01:05:00AM +0000, rbw3@cet.nau.edu wrote:
> 
> If my understanding is correct, the CDK library being under GPL is
> different then what you think. All that means it that the tools that they
> use to put the library together are GPL, not that the software you develop
> with the CDK is GPL.
> 
> A huge example of this is the GCC suite.

No, it is not, since the CDK contains a bunch of libraries, which have to be
linked with the code, and as thus make the final product GPled also.

While gcc does not such thing, only process the code.

There could be an analogy with glibc though, which is GPLed.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

Re: [Caml-list] CDK license

[John Max Skaller]

Brian Rogoff wrote:
> 
> I notice that the CDK license is GPL, rather than LGPL.

I imagine this constraint was forced upon CDK because
some of the components of the CDK are GPL.

-- 
John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au
10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850
checkout Vyper http://Vyper.sourceforge.net
download Interscript http://Interscript.sourceforge.net
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

Re: [Caml-list] CDK license

[Fabrice Le Fessant]

I didn't care a lot about the COPYING file when releasing the
CDK. However, the COPYING file included in the CDK root directory
contains a header specifying that it only applies to directories where
no other LICENCE/COPYING file is present. I will try to add to all
directories their previous LICENCE file if different from the root
one, so that everyone is happy. Maybe we will also move the root one
to LGPL if it is really a problem.

Best regards,

- Fabrice
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

Re: [Caml-list] CDK license

[Brian Rogoff]

On Thu, 31 May 2001, Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> On the same line of thought, the ocaml compiler is released under the
> QPL, which is not compatible with the GPL.
> This means that you cannot build a toplevel including any library
> under the GPL, since it would be in contradiction with either of the
> two licenses.
> At the very least, it seems necessary to add a clause to the GPL,
> saying that linking to QPLed libraries is allowed, just as RMS himself
> suggested for KDE software.

At this point, I'd suggest that we _really_ need to consult a lawyer who
is familiar with intellectual property law and the GPL. 

As far as libraries go, I think the LGPL is a fair compromise between the 
really dedicated RMS followers (once affectionately referred to as
"license ayatollahs" on this very list :) and those who are willing to
tolerate a variety of kinds of software, including proprietary. I
understand the reasons for going GPL instead of LGPL ("resistance is
futile, prepare to be assimilated, or don't use this code") but if it's 
going to be that way then I don't want my Consortium dues to fund work
on the CDK. 

> Another remark is that lablgtk-1.2.0 contains a COPYING file, saying
> that the library itself is LGPL, examples are more or less public
> domain, and applications are _not_ open source. Claiming that all this
> is GPL is clearly wrong. This COPYING is not there, and no README file
> either, which is the only documentation for lablgtk :-)
> 
> (This is not a rant: I am the one who didn't check)

It's a tricky business, this license stuff, and a lot less fun than coding ;-).

-- Brian

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

Re: [Caml-list] CDK license

[Jacques Garrigue]

> I notice that the CDK license is GPL, rather than LGPL. I've read the 
> discussions of GPL vs LGPL, and I'm not unsympathetic to the Free 
> Software cause, but (speaking for myself here) as a commercial OCaml user 
> I won't be able to use the CDK for this reason. So, for instance, I'll end
> up grabbing lablgtk and PCRE directly from the source where their authors
> chose to release it under LGPL, rather than using the CDK.

On the same line of thought, the ocaml compiler is released under the
QPL, which is not compatible with the GPL.
This means that you cannot build a toplevel including any library
under the GPL, since it would be in contradiction with either of the
two licenses.
At the very least, it seems necessary to add a clause to the GPL,
saying that linking to QPLed libraries is allowed, just as RMS himself
suggested for KDE software.

Another remark is that lablgtk-1.2.0 contains a COPYING file, saying
that the library itself is LGPL, examples are more or less public
domain, and applications are _not_ open source. Claiming that all this
is GPL is clearly wrong. This COPYING is not there, and no README file
either, which is the only documentation for lablgtk :-)

(This is not a rant: I am the one who didn't check)

Best regards,

Jacques Garrigue
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

Re: [Caml-list] CDK license

[rbw3]

If my understanding is correct, the CDK library being under GPL is
different then what you think. All that means it that the tools that they
use to put the library together are GPL, not that the software you develop
with the CDK is GPL.

A huge example of this is the GCC suite.

--Brock

On Wed, 30 May 2001, Brian Rogoff wrote:

| I notice that the CDK license is GPL, rather than LGPL. I've read the 
...
| -- Brian
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr

[Caml-list] CDK license

[Brian Rogoff]

I notice that the CDK license is GPL, rather than LGPL. I've read the 
discussions of GPL vs LGPL, and I'm not unsympathetic to the Free 
Software cause, but (speaking for myself here) as a commercial OCaml user 
I won't be able to use the CDK for this reason. So, for instance, I'll end
up grabbing lablgtk and PCRE directly from the source where their authors
chose to release it under LGPL, rather than using the CDK.

Was this a conscientious choice on the part of the CDK developers? If so, 
then perhaps Caml Consortium members should think about creating a less 
encumbered "standard" library. It would be a pity to have to duplicate 
this effort. 

-- Brian


-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr