[Caml-list] User library license

[Caml-list] User library license

[Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer]

> 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.

GPL eliminates commercial usage.  LGPL is currently
deprecated even by the Free Software Foundation.  It's
too murky -- what constitutes a 'derivative work' or
'library linkage' is highly debatable.  Many projects
use a modified LGPL for this reason; wxWindows and
FLTK are two examples.

The best choices would be either the Academic Free
License or the Mozilla Public License.  The Academic
Free License is modern 'best practice' and was drafted
by OSI lawyers.  The MPL came about through extensive
user discussions over a long period of time (as did
wxWindows which is also OSI-approved).

See also the "Fallacy of GNU" -
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/13420.html

Mark
-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[Sven Luther]

On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 07:30:42AM +0100, Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer 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).

As a special exception to the GNU Library General Public License, you
may link, statically or dynamically, a "work that uses the Library"
with a publicly distributed version of the Library to produce an
executable file containing portions of the Library, and distribute
that executable file under terms of your choice, without any of the
additional requirements listed in clause 6 of the GNU Library General
Public License.  By "a publicly distributed version of the Library",
we mean either the unmodified Library as distributed by INRIA, or a
modified version of the Library that is distributed under the
conditions defined in clause 3 of the GNU Library General Public
License.  This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons
why the executable file might be covered by the GNU Library General
Public License.

Anything less restrictive would not be usefull, since you link with the
ocaml runtime anyway.

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

Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[Brian Hurt]

On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Sven Luther wrote:

> The best idea is to use the same licence the ocaml runtime currently
> uses :

This is by far the best idea.  This means we don't have to relicense the 
software to move it between the user library and the standard library.  
Relicensing is a bitch, to put it simply.  If the two licenses are 
congruent from day one, no relicensing is needed (and moving code is loads 
easier).

> 
> 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).
> 

This argument would have convinced me to use a different license thant he 
LGPL.

Brian


-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[Sven Luther]

On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 01:57:20PM -0600, Brian Hurt wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
> 
> > The best idea is to use the same licence the ocaml runtime currently
> > uses :
> 
> This is by far the best idea.  This means we don't have to relicense the 
> software to move it between the user library and the standard library.  
> Relicensing is a bitch, to put it simply.  If the two licenses are 
> congruent from day one, no relicensing is needed (and moving code is loads 
> easier).

:)))

> > 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).
> > 
> 
> This argument would have convinced me to use a different license thant he 
> LGPL.

Huh ???

I just copied the licence from my debian package, i guess the important
part is the second paragraph. There was a huge discution about it here,
and even RMS gave its input and approval. Just check the mail archive of
it to see the argument, and maybe a reply from me to RMS where the
problem was resumed.

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

Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[Nicolas Cannasse]

> > > 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)

Nicolas Cannasse

-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[Brian Hurt]

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Nicolas Cannasse wrote:

> And what about a "do anything you want with it, including compiling,
> modifiying, inserting bugs" license ?

A) This would require relicensing the code when/if it gets included in the 
standard library.  Which means tracking down every single contributor and 
getting their permission to relicense their work (probably needing a 
signed and witnessed peice of paper).

B) If you have identified some shortcomming in the libraries, the 
probability is that other people have as well, and could benefit from your 
code.

C) I don't want 50 different proprietary versions of the library running 
around.  The original unix schism occurred because people (and companies) 
took the source code, made changes to it, and didn't release the changes.  
Which meant you ended up with 50 different, incompatible, extensions to 
address the same problem.

D) A personal reason: I'm a paid programmer.  Occassionally I accept 
payment in kind- which is what I view the GPL (and LGPL) as.  I, for one, 
would be disinclined to license my code under a BSD or Public Domain style 
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)

There is a theory in IP law circles that the *only* way a copyrightable
work can become public domain is for the copyright to expire.  And that 
simply distributing the work without a license doesn't mean that a license 
(with arbitrary terms) could be imposed at a later point.

Brian


-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[Sven Luther]

On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 08:43:30PM -0600, Brian Hurt wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
> 
> > And what about a "do anything you want with it, including compiling,
> > modifiying, inserting bugs" license ?
> 
> A) This would require relicensing the code when/if it gets included in the 
> standard library.  Which means tracking down every single contributor and 
> getting their permission to relicense their work (probably needing a 
> signed and witnessed peice of paper).

No, since such a liberal licence allows even relicencing, be it with the
LGPL or some proprietary licence.

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

Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[Alessandro Baretta]

Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 08:43:30PM -0600, Brian Hurt wrote:
> 
>>On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And what about a "do anything you want with it, including compiling,
>>>modifiying, inserting bugs" license ?

Quite a few of us would not contribute code to a public 
domain or BSD style project. I'd stick with what we already 
have.

Alex

-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[Blair Zajac]

Alessandro Baretta wrote:
> 
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 08:43:30PM -0600, Brian Hurt wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>And what about a "do anything you want with it, including compiling,
> >>>modifiying, inserting bugs" license ?
> 
> Quite a few of us would not contribute code to a public
> domain or BSD style project. I'd stick with what we already
> have.

I would contribute to a BSD license for core libraries.

Best,
Blair

-- 
Blair Zajac <blair@orcaware.com>
Plots of your system's performance - http://www.orcaware.com/orca/
-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[John Max Skaller]

Brian Hurt wrote:


> There is a theory in IP law circles that the *only* way a copyrightable
> work can become public domain is for the copyright to expire.  And that 
> simply distributing the work without a license doesn't mean that a license 
> (with arbitrary terms) could be imposed at a later point.


There is a very serious fundamental flaw of understanding here.

A (typical) licence does NOT impose any constraints on the client.
Totally to the contrary, a licence applies constraints on the vendor.

The client is first restricted by copyright laws, and then
the licence RELEASES the client from certain constraints
of the copyright under certain conditions, and as such
the licence is a UNILATERAL PROMISE BY THE AUTHOR/VENDOR.

The licence is NOT any kind of agreement.

In a court, the author might sue the client for breaching
copyright, and the client might claim that the use
was in accordance with the licence .. and
THE ONUS IS ON THE CLIENT TO PROVE THE AUTHOR
PERMITTED THE USE e made of the code which would
otherwise breach copyright.

I would not like to have to prove that since I do NOT
have a signed piece of paper with the authors permission
to make such copies as would otherwise be proscribed.
I'd probably only feel confident if the source was
encrypted and signed by PGP and matched the authors loudly
proclaimed public key. I think a judge would believe that.

So you can see that companies have a twofold problem with
GPL and other such licences: first is that they may
not feel they can use the code with the permissions granted
by the author, and second that they have grave doubts
they can actually prove those permissions were granted.

BTW: I wonder what would happen if say Microsoft breached
GPL. It would be funny because I don't think GNU could sue them.
i mean, even if the case were proved, it is a civil matter and
they'd have to sue for damages .. only GNU doesn't make any money
out of their code and so the damages would have to be zero :-)

I suspect RedHat could sue for damages .. and might actually
be awarded a non-zero sum, but the best GNU would ever get
is an order to stop distribution.

-- 
John Max Skaller, mailto:skaller@ozemail.com.au
snail:10/1 Toxteth Rd, Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia.
voice:61-2-9660-0850


-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[Sven Luther]

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

Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[Nicolas Cannasse]

> > > > 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 krernel 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.

Uhm, perhaps I'm not paranoid enough, but whe're just talking about an
extension to the Standard OCaml Library...
The goal here is to provide to every caml developper all the data structures
he will ever want to use - and corresponding algorithms. Who is going to
steal it ? and for what purpose ?

If tomorrow Apple steal it and start developping serious software in OCaml,
I think it would be a good thing for the whole community since you'll be
able to tell your boss that "ocaml is great : Apple is using it" , or to the
guy who's hiring you " i'm writing such good code that Apple itself can't
help stealing it " :)

As a programmer, I'm proud to licence software that I'm developping, but
this is gonna be a big common melt in the first times, I keep my pride away
and give my code for the sake of the community.

> 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.

You gain a clear license for users not familiar with the LGPL :  I think
that the "GPL" part in "LGPL" can sometimes be mistaken by frilous users.

Nicolas Cannasse

-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 06:47:06PM +0900, Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
> > > > > 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 krernel 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.
> 
> Uhm, perhaps I'm not paranoid enough, but whe're just talking about an
> extension to the Standard OCaml Library...
> The goal here is to provide to every caml developper all the data structures
> he will ever want to use - and corresponding algorithms. Who is going to
> steal it ? and for what purpose ?

Sure, sure, but still if nobody has plans to steal it, it should be ok
writing a licence that ensures that and nobody should complain.

> If tomorrow Apple steal it and start developping serious software in OCaml,
> I think it would be a good thing for the whole community since you'll be
> able to tell your boss that "ocaml is great : Apple is using it" , or to the
> guy who's hiring you " i'm writing such good code that Apple itself can't
> help stealing it " :)

Sure, but the problem is that it will not be apple which will do it,
and your argument will have a lot less impact if you give your boss the
name of some obscure little company he knows nothing about.

> As a programmer, I'm proud to licence software that I'm developping, but
> this is gonna be a big common melt in the first times, I keep my pride away
> and give my code for the sake of the community.

sure, but you do not say under what licence you are licencing it.

> > 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.
> 
> You gain a clear license for users not familiar with the LGPL :  I think
> that the "GPL" part in "LGPL" can sometimes be mistaken by frilous users.

Most people don't even read the licences, just the name of them. Sure
the LGPL is similar to the GPL in name, but there is no reason to be
afraid of that until you have hidden agendas. And anyway, i think the
best way to do this, is to start the licence thingy by "We use the same
licence as the ocaml runtime, ...", and nobody will have problems with
that. Again, there was a huge thread some time back, just read it. Also,
maybe the ocaml team should have named their licence, so this would not
be a problem. It would be the ORPL (Ocaml Runtime Public Licence), and
everyone would be happy with it, the people not reading licences would
know it is the licence used by the ocaml runtime, and the people readin
licences would notice it is just the LGPL and be happy.

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

Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[John Max Skaller]

Sven Luther wrote:

I hate GPL and other such licences and like plain
old 'Free for any use' BUT

> And anyway, i think the
> best way to do this, is to start the licence thingy by "We use the same
> licence as the ocaml runtime, ...", 


I do not think there is any sensible option other than this.
We are trying, are we not, not provide an enhancement to the
ocaml standard library?

Then our code is *derived* from the standard library, and must
have the same licence.


-- 
John Max Skaller, mailto:skaller@ozemail.com.au
snail:10/1 Toxteth Rd, Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia.
voice:61-2-9660-0850


-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[Blair Zajac]

Sven Luther wrote:
> 
> 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 see a difference between a kernel which definitely can be made proprietary
from language or core library extensions, which I see are just tools to
make proprietary code.

> 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.

I wouldn't have an issue with this.  I see getting improving the core language
to be more important than license issues.  After all, these libraries are
not 

I would use the C++ Boost library as an example of people contributing to
a high quality library.  Parts of the Boost library may be accepted by the
C++ standards body for future standardization.  I would guess that many
people would be proud to get their code into such a library

Here are the submission guidelines for Boost

http://www.boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm

Quoting:

     The license must meet the license requirements below. Restricted licenses
     like the GPL and LGPL are not acceptable. 

Here are their license requirements

    Must be simple to read and understand. 

    Must grant permission to copy, use and modify the software for any use
    (commercial and non-commercial) for no fee. 

    Must require that the license appear on all copies of the software source
    code. 

    Must not require that the license appear with executables or other binary
    uses of the library. 

    Must not require that the source code be available for execution or other
    binary uses of the library. 

    May restrict the use of the name and description of the library to the
    standard version found on the Boost web site. 

I would have no problems contributing to a library with these license
requirements, and suggest using Boost as a library to module Ocaml
libraries after.

Best,
Blair

-- 
Blair Zajac <blair@orcaware.com>
Plots of your system's performance - http://www.orcaware.com/orca/
-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[John Max Skaller]

> 
> I would have no problems contributing to a library with these license
> requirements, and suggest using Boost as a library to module Ocaml
> libraries after.

The kind of licence Boost uses is one I like, BUT it would
be tricky to derive an extension to the OCaml std lib with
that licence since it is LGPL.

I doubt that Boost library *contents* are entirely appropriate
for Ocaml though: stuff like Lambda etc are template hackery
designed to emulate lower order facilities which are primitive
to Ocaml: "we already got that in the core language".

OTOH it might be useful to USE some of the code, for example
the RE stuff is better than PCRE: its reentrant, will almost
certainly be ISO Standardised, pay more attention to I189 issues,
and there are no licence problems :-)

-- 
John Max Skaller, mailto:skaller@ozemail.com.au
snail:10/1 Toxteth Rd, Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia.
voice:61-2-9660-0850


-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[Markus Mottl]

On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, John Max Skaller wrote:
> OTOH it might be useful to USE some of the code, for example the RE
> stuff is better than PCRE: its reentrant, will almost certainly be
> ISO Standardised, pay more attention to I189 issues, and there are no
> licence problems :-)

Just to prevent any misunderstandings: PCRE _is_ reentrant!

Regards,
Markus Mottl

-- 
Markus Mottl                                             markus@oefai.at
Austrian Research Institute
for Artificial Intelligence                  http://www.oefai.at/~markus
-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[John Max Skaller]

Markus Mottl wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, John Max Skaller wrote:
> 
>>OTOH it might be useful to USE some of the code, for example the RE
>>stuff is better than PCRE: its reentrant, will almost certainly be
>>ISO Standardised, pay more attention to I189 issues, and there are no
>>licence problems :-)
>>
> 
> Just to prevent any misunderstandings: PCRE _is_ reentrant!


My apologies, I thought the C part wasn't.




-- 
John Max Skaller, mailto:skaller@ozemail.com.au
snail:10/1 Toxteth Rd, Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia.
voice:61-2-9660-0850


-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[Issac Trotts]

Sven Luther wrote:

>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.
>
It would be more accurate to say that they "copied" the BSD kernel. 
 "Taking"
usually means that the one who had it no longer has it.  Why should it 
matter
if they use information so long as they don't take away other people's 
freedom
to use it?  

Issac Trotts



-------------------
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

[Caml-list] off-topic: apple and bsd (was Re: User library license)

[james woodyatt]

[sincere apologies for the off-topic message]

On Monday, Feb 24, 2003, at 10:52 US/Pacific, Issac Trotts wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> It would be more accurate to say that they "copied" the BSD kernel. 
> "Taking"
> usually means that the one who had it no longer has it.  Why should it 
> matter
> if they use information so long as they don't take away other people's 
> freedom
> to use it?

It would also improve the accuracy of the statement if the phrase "and 
don't give anything back" were elided.  Apple has released the source 
code for the Darwin OS, i.e. the BSD kernel and userland applications 
ported to Apple's not-quite-a-microkernel-anymore variant of the Mach 
microkernel that serves as a foundation for Mac OS X.  There are Darwin 
OS developers who are not Apple employees.  They have their own 
agendas, and they consider their interests served by cooperating with 
Apple in the development of the core of Mac OS X.

The primary difference between the BSD License and the current Apple 
Public Source License is that the latter sports a layer of legal armor 
designed to ward off frivolous IP lawsuits against a publicly traded 
corporation with billions of dollars in liquid cash assets.

[If anyone wishes to dispute this, please message me directly.]


-- 
j h woodyatt <jhw@wetware.com>

-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[Damien Doligez]

On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 10:24 AM, Sven Luther wrote:

> 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.

Doh.  Apple has release all their changes to the BSD kernel
under an open source licence.  If the kernel had been under GPL,
that wouldn't have changed much for them.

>  I think licencing is the main
> reason they choose a BSD kernel over a linux one back then.

It was NeXT that chose a BSD kernel.  Darwin is the son of NeXTStep.
Back then, Linux didn't exist, so the choice was not hard to make.

>  I suppose some people (including me) would not be willing to
> contribute code under these circunstances

The problem with these license discussions is that nobody knows
what they are talking about.  We're not lawyers after all.

-- Damien

-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:18:36PM +0100, Damien Doligez wrote:
> On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 10:24 AM, Sven Luther wrote:
> 
> >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.
> 
> Doh.  Apple has release all their changes to the BSD kernel
> under an open source licence.  If the kernel had been under GPL,
> that wouldn't have changed much for them.

Sure, but they don't release low level information on their hardware, in
particular not some stuff needed by the XFree86 developpers, altough
they are happy enough to integrate the XDarwin server in MacOS X.

Anyway, maybe it was not the best idea to take Apple as example, give me
another try. There is log of BSD code in windows NT, and Microsoft sure
didn't give anything back for it, they even tried to hijack the open
standards and such.

> > I think licencing is the main
> >reason they choose a BSD kernel over a linux one back then.
> 
> It was NeXT that chose a BSD kernel.  Darwin is the son of NeXTStep.
> Back then, Linux didn't exist, so the choice was not hard to make.

But they could have changed that in early 98 when Steve came back to
apple. I am sure one strong argument against it was the licencing.

> > I suppose some people (including me) would not be willing to
> >contribute code under these circunstances
> 
> The problem with these license discussions is that nobody knows
> what they are talking about.  We're not lawyers after all.

Speak for yourself, as a debian developper, i have to pay close
attention to licencing issues, and think i know at least something about
it. I am not sure a lawyer not specialized in computer licences would
know more about it than me.

But anyway, this is more a political decision than a legal one, and
again, please let's take this discution to some other place, i will no
more post on this subject here.

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

Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[mgushee]

On 23 Feb 2003 at 7:30, Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remai 
wrote:

> GPL eliminates commercial usage.

Well, you'd better let Red Hat Software know about that. They have 
this bizarre notion that you can build a whole business around GPL'ed 
software. Fools.

Or did you mean to say something a little different?

> The best choices would be either the Academic Free
> License or the Mozilla Public License.  The Academic
> Free License is modern 'best practice' and was drafted
> by OSI lawyers.  The MPL came about through extensive
> user discussions over a long period of time

I wonder what sort of users you're referring to? Personally, I find 
the MPL a monstrosity of legal jargon. Anyway, if you're going to 
assert that certain licenses are "best," your readers would 
appreciate it if you explained how you think those licenses benefit 
software authors and/or the community. The fact that a certain
license was carefully designed (a claim that, I think, could be made 
for most open source licenses) doesn't by itself make the license 
good in general, or appropriate for any given project.

> See also the "Fallacy of GNU" -
> http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/13420.html

Hmph. Takes a potentially interesting point and butchers it. The
author's thesis is essentially: the GPL depends on copyright;
copyrighted materials are subject to fair use; since the GPL hasn't
been tested in court, fair use may undermine its supposed
protections without our knowing it. Could be. But he spends 90% of 
the article illustrating general points that may or may not be 
relevant.

--
Matt Gushee
Englewood, CO USA
-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[Brian Hurt]

On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer 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.
> 
> GPL eliminates commercial usage.  

No, but it does severely restict it.  I agree that the GPL is the wrong 
license for this project.

> LGPL is currently
> deprecated even by the Free Software Foundation.  It's
> too murky -- what constitutes a 'derivative work' or
> 'library linkage' is highly debatable.  Many projects
> use a modified LGPL for this reason; wxWindows and
> FLTK are two examples.

The GPL has the same problems.  But these problems show up in languages 
like Java or Python, where the concept of linking has been blurred or 
changed.  Ocaml has a much more "normal" view of linking.

I have a friend whose an IP lawyer, and he tells me that 'derivative work'
is (in effect) a precise technical term to lawyers, whose meaning has been
hammered out over several centuries of jurisprudence.  For the 
precise definition, read <long list of judicial opinions>.  Rather like
'LALR(1) parser' is precise technical term to computer programmers.  For 
the precise definition read <first six chapters of the dragon book>.  Note 
that in practice, the legal definition of 'derivative work' and what you'd 
think it to be are pretty much identical.

I am about as inclined to trust legal documents written by programmers as 
I am to trust software written by lawyers- to wit, not at all.  Both the 
LGPL and GPL were rewritten by lawyers for version 2.0.  The MPL was 
drafted by Netscape's lawyers.  Not sure about the APL.

> 
> The best choices would be either the Academic Free
> License or the Mozilla Public License.  The Academic
> Free License is modern 'best practice' and was drafted
> by OSI lawyers.  The MPL came about through extensive
> user discussions over a long period of time (as did
> wxWindows which is also OSI-approved).

I thought the MPL had a loophole which allowed the original copyright 
owner to use contributed code in a proprietary manner.  In other words, 
Netscape could use and extend Mozilla for it's browser, including using 
other people's code, but no one else could.  Correct if I'm wrong.  I 
haven't looked at the APL yet.

I like the *idea* of the LGPL for this use- that you can use (unmodified) 
libraries in any way you want.  But improvements to the libraries are 
common property.

> 
> See also the "Fallacy of GNU" -
> http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/13420.html
> 

The fact that the GPL has never been defended in court doesn't necessarily 
mean that it's weak.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  The GPL has been in 
several adviserial conflicts, where someone took GPL code and violated the 
licenses.  Generally, once lawyers get involved, they generally tell the 
offending party "surrender now, and get out cheap.  You will lose."  In 
effect, the GPL is strong enough to win without having to go to court.

And the question of how much code qualifies as "fair use" is moot.  If 
you're using enough GPL'd code in your proprietary product that a) it's 
detectable, and b) it's worthwhile for someone to bring you to court over 
it, then you're using enough code to not be covered by fair use, by quite 
a long margin.

If you are using little enough code that you might be covered by fair use, 
it's probably easier and cheaper to simply throw that code out and rewrite 
it if someone wants to make a fuss, than it is to litigate it.

Most of the rest of fair use is explicitly allowed for by the GPL.  For
example, it'd be perfectly legal for Microsoft to download a copy of
Linux, read the source to figure out all of it's interfaces, and
algorithms and datastructure it uses, and write a binary-compatible
operating system.  And distribute this new operating system under any
terms they desire.  So long as they didn't use the *source code*, the
ideas are free for the taking.

And finally, yes, I am big advocate of copyrights for software.  It's 
software patents which are the spawn of satan.

Brian

-------------------
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

Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[Sven Luther]

On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 01:52:20PM -0600, Brian Hurt wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote:
> > The best choices would be either the Academic Free
> > License or the Mozilla Public License.  The Academic
> > Free License is modern 'best practice' and was drafted
> > by OSI lawyers.  The MPL came about through extensive
> > user discussions over a long period of time (as did
> > wxWindows which is also OSI-approved).
> 
> I thought the MPL had a loophole which allowed the original copyright 
> owner to use contributed code in a proprietary manner.  In other words, 
> Netscape could use and extend Mozilla for it's browser, including using 
> other people's code, but no one else could.  Correct if I'm wrong.  I 
> haven't looked at the APL yet.

Notice, that if we want the stuff to be includable in the standard
library some time from now, we should maybe track the individual
submissions and see if they agree to it being able to be lincensed under
another licence. I think ocaml is also provided under a proprietary
licence to the ocaml consortium people, so they would need to be able to
do that with the code they integrate also, or they may not be willing to
integrate it. 

This is a point where it would be nice to have feedback from the ocaml
team about it, but maybe re-using the LGPL + exception of the ocaml
runtime and then adding a further paragraph or such saying that if part
of the library is in the future integrated in the ocaml package, it is
ok to relicence it, as long as it stays within the ocaml package. It
needs clearer wording though.

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