From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95DA0BB91 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:14:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0SHE7af010214 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:14:07 +0100 Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA13314 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:14:07 +0100 (MET) Received: from yquem.inria.fr (yquem.inria.fr [128.93.8.37]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0SHE6hh023241; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:14:06 +0100 Received: by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix, from userid 18041) id A37C8BB91; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:14:06 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:14:06 +0100 To: Jozef Kosoru Cc: caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml license - why not GPL? Message-ID: <20050128171406.GA30579@yquem.inria.fr> 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/1.3.28i From: luc.maranget@inria.fr (Luc Maranget) X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 41FA72DF.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 41FA72DE.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocaml:01 gpl:01 luc:01 maranget:01 luc:01 maranget:01 o'caml:01 compiler:01 gpl:01 compiler:01 lgpl:01 o'caml:01 ocaml:01 index-eng:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: > Hello, > > I would like to ask O'Caml developers why they have chosen QPL license > for the compiler and GPL for libraries? > > Of course they have a full right to choose a license they want but I > think that GPL for the compiler and LGPL for the libraries would be a > much better choice. Hello, Some explanations on the license choice for O'Caml can be found on the web It may answer some of your questions. > > 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). As far as I understand, nothing in a licence prevents easy configuration and installation (and indeed installing Ocaml from the site is what you describe (configure/make/make install) As I see it, different packaging organizations have different policies as regards licenses... > > Best regards, > Jozef > -- Luc Maranget