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 KAA21373; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:16:02 +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 KAA21370 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:16:01 +0100 (MET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id fAT9G0T09760; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:16:00 +0100 (MET) Received: (from xleroy@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id KAA21366; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:15:59 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:15:59 +0100 From: Xavier Leroy To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=E9r=F4me_Marant?= Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml Message-ID: <20011129101559.B19662@pauillac.inria.fr> References: <20011128192239.B9601@pauillac.inria.fr> <20011129093158.B11328@hars> <20011129094325.A4695@verdot.inria.fr> <3C05FA31.14201157@fr.thalesgroup.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <3C05FA31.14201157@fr.thalesgroup.com>; from jerome.marant@fr.thalesgroup.com on Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 10:04:49AM +0100 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > I've just subscribed to the list and I'm entering this interesting > discussion. I'm sorry, I may have missed the previous messages. > > I know that OCaml is distributed under the QPL and this license > is not GPL-compatible. This means that people (Ocaml program > writers) cannot redistribute their programs under the GPL > (they have to choose LGPL instead, for example). > > Some people came up with a dual-licensing solution. The most > obvious examples are Perl and Qt. > A dual QPL/GPL license for OCaml could solve the problem > that is mentioned. Please read the licensing conditions for OCaml. All parts that can be linked with user's code (runtime, libraries) are distributed under the LGPL, possibly with a future exception to clause 6 so that users can link with this code without any additional requirements on their code. The QPL covers only the OCaml compilers themselves -- and of course not the code they generate. > Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote: > > > The point is the LGPL, not the GPL. We don't want the GPL to contaminate > > users programs. > > I think that freedom is the right to choose the licence for the > software you write. Precisely. That's why, say, putting the libraries under the GPL would be unacceptable; and even putting them under the LGPL (without exceptions) isn't quite enough to achieve this goal. - Xavier Leroy ------------------- 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