Re: [Caml-list] User library license

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

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