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 JAA11454; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:11:12 +0100 (MET) 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 JAA11440 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:11:11 +0100 (MET) Received: from dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr (dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.44.193]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id fAU8BA115874; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:11:10 +0100 (MET) Received: (from luther@localhost) by dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA14836; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:09:28 +0100 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:09:28 +0100 From: Sven To: Xavier Leroy Cc: John Field , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml Message-ID: <20011130090928.B14742@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> References: <20011128192239.B9601@pauillac.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i 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 On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 07:22:39PM +0100, Xavier Leroy wrote: > John, > > Thank you for your feedback -- it's very interesting to hear from an > industrial user who got the opinions of competent lawyers. > > Let me just state again what we'd like to achieve concerning the > licensing of the OCaml runtime and libraries: > > 1- Users can link with it, statically or dynamically, without any > restrictions on the final program. > 2- Users can modify the runtime or the libraries themselves, but then > must make their modifications public under the same conditions as > the original source. > 3- The license should be standard, OSI-approved, and well known to the > public that cares about these things. > > All three items are easy to justify: for 1, we don't want to bother > anyone who uses OCaml; for 2, we'd like OCaml to remain open > source, meaning that everyone should be able to benefit from the > modifications on OCaml itself that someone did; and for 3, we're not > competent for inventing yet another license and get it recognized as > open source compliant. Well, a 4th way would be to take the technical steps which would allow the current licence to fullfill the 2 first requirements. Also i think it will be very welcome for other purposes also ... Also please consider all the implications before going ahead with it ... > 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 Well, it is the silly requirement that guarantee's criterion 2, under other things. I have to go now, maybe we ca nfollow up on this discution at a later time ? 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