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 OAA25641; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:05:38 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id OAA25655 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:05:37 +0100 (MET) 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 UAA11111 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:14:21 +0100 (MET) Received: from patan.sun.com (patan.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id fASJEEv08382 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:14:15 +0100 (MET) Received: from sun-gy.Germany.Sun.COM ([129.157.128.5]) by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA15140 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:13:56 -0700 (MST) Received: from sunhsc.germany.sun.com (sunhsc [129.157.133.197]) by sun-gy.Germany.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id UAA08959 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:14:12 +0100 (MET) Received: (from rk105060@localhost) by sunhsc.germany.sun.com (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) id fASJECe10252 for caml-list@inria.fr; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:14:12 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:14:11 +0100 From: Ronald Kuehn To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml Message-ID: <20011128201411.A1011@sunhsc.germany.sun.com> References: <20011128192239.B9601@pauillac.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20011128192239.B9601@pauillac.inria.fr>; from xavier.leroy@inria.fr on Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 07:22:39PM +0100 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Xavier Leroy wrote: > Now the problem is that apparently there is no existing license that > matches these three criteria. The LGPL was chosen before we realized > all its implications w.r.t. static linking. But popular licenses such > as BSD or X don't meet criterion 2. Our current hope is that the LGPL > with a special exception to paragraph 6 saying "you can link with our > code any way you like" would fulfill all three requirements. > As I said above, the other standard licenses (e.g. BSD, X) don't offer > enough guarantees about the OCaml libraries and runtime themselves > remaining open source. Well, nobody can "hide" the already existing code if it is under a BSD license. X11, NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD ... still exist and are "Open Source" although anyone is allowed to take the code, add features and sell binary only versions. All those projects will live as long as somebody cares about them and maintains them. Even if this is not the case, the latest code will still remain "Open Source". Even binary only versions will only succeed if the features added are so overwhelmingly good that customers will buy it and accept the fact that they won't get the source. If it is just "take the source, modify it somewhat, compile it, and sell the binaries" - nobody will buy that since there is always the Open Source implementation available for free which can be easily modified to the needs. Nobody can take away the original source anyway. So I can't see any negative impact of using a BSD style license. But that is of course the decision of the people owning the copyright. Bye, Ronald ------------------- 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