Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[Sven Luther <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>]

On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:45:34AM +0900, Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
> > > > Regarding license ... I suppose LGPL could be fine.
> > >
> > > The new "user code library" is a good idea, but GPL
> > > and LGPL are both bad ideas.
> >
> > The best idea is to use the same licence the ocaml runtime currently
> > uses :
> >
> > The Library is distributed under the terms of the GNU Library General
> > Public License version 2 (found in /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2
> > on debian systems).
> 
> And what about a "do anything you want with it, including compiling,
> modifiying, inserting bugs" license ?
> I mean, this kind of collaborative work shouldn't even be (c)
> (although it's fair to maintain a list of contributors somewhere in the
> distribution)

The problem with that is that anyone can take your work, modify it, and
don't give anything back, look at apple for example, they took the BSD
kernel, and don't give anything back. I think licencing is the main
reason they choose a BSD kernel over a linux one back then. I suppose
some people (including me) would not be willing to contribute code under
these circunstances, so i don't think it would be best for the project,
since the aim is to put in common the code.

Also, the main argument, is that it gains you nothing more, since you
have to link with the ocaml runtime anyway, which is licenced as LGPL +
exception.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners