Re: [Caml-list] User library license

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

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