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 JAA20384; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:49:07 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA20380 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:49:07 +0100 (MET) Received: from quetelet.bik-gmbh.de (quetelet.bik-gmbh.de [194.233.237.132]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id fAT8n6T08273 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:49:06 +0100 (MET) Received: from hars by quetelet.bik-gmbh.de with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 169Mr2-0002yc-00; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:47:36 +0100 Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:47:36 +0100 From: Florian Hars To: james woodyatt Cc: The Trade Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml Message-ID: <20011129094736.C11328@hars> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from jhw@wetware.com on Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 05:25:23PM -0800 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 05:25:23PM -0800, james woodyatt wrote: > The two licenses that spring to mind most readily to me are the Artistic > License, and the Apple Public Source License. But if you consider using these, you might want to take the FSF's stance on these license into account: Artistic: We cannot say that this is a free software license because it is too vague ... We urge you to avoid using it, except as part of the disjunctive license of Perl. APSL: Please don't use this license, and we urge you to avoid any software that has been released under it. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense Yours, Florian ------------------- 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