From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B06BB91 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:09:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0SH90cg022616 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:09:00 +0100 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA13002 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:08:59 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail.davidb.org (adsl-64-172-240-129.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net [64.172.240.129]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0SH8wEm009621 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:08:59 +0100 Received: from davidb by mail.davidb.org with local (Exim 4.43 #1 (Debian)) id 1CuZc6-0004qi-Md; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:08:54 -0800 Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:08:54 -0800 From: David Brown To: Jozef Kosoru Cc: caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml license - why not GPL? Message-ID: <20050128170854.GA18431@old.davidb.org> References: <20050128164744.GG13718@osiris.uid0.sk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050128164744.GG13718@osiris.uid0.sk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 41FA71AC.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 41FA71AA.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 caml-list:01 ocaml:01 gpl:01 wrote:01 o'caml:01 o'caml:01 gpl:01 compiler:01 ocaml:01 compiler:01 liberal:98 exception:01 compile:01 compile:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 05:47:44PM +0100, Jozef Kosoru wrote: > Now it is for example impossible to distribute an O'Caml package as a > part of some O'Caml GPL project source package. Users have to know that > this program is written in some unusual programming language and they > have to download and compile the O'Campl compiler first. For them it > would be much better to just download the application sources and type > /configure; make; make install > .and build process would compile the ocaml compiler (if it's not already > present) and then compile application sources and install native > executable (just like C/C++ apps). I'm not exactly sure what your question is, but there is nothing about the QPL or GPL that would forbid you from distributing the sources of the ocaml compiler with another product. Both licenses would allow this. The only thing that would be restricted would be if your program links with or uses parts of the compiler itself. Also, the ocaml library contains an exception that allows linking with non-GPL programs, and is fairly liberal. Dave