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 CF57ABB91 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:07:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from ptb-relay01.plus.net (ptb-relay01.plus.net [212.159.14.212]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0SJ7D5d023786 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:07:13 +0100 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=chetara) by ptb-relay01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1CubSZ-000GlV-Uj for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:07:12 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: University of Cambridge To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml license - why not GPL? Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:09:10 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 References: <20050128164744.GG13718@osiris.uid0.sk> <20050128170854.GA18431@old.davidb.org> In-Reply-To: <20050128170854.GA18431@old.davidb.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200501281909.11006.jon@jdh30.plus.com> X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 41FA8D61.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocaml:01 gpl:01 wrote:01 compiler:01 ocaml:01 compilers:01 run-time:01 ocamlopt:01 compilers:01 compiler:01 hofs:01 imho:01 ...:98 frog:98 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: On Friday 28 January 2005 17:08, David Brown wrote: > The only > thing that would be restricted would be if your program links with or uses > parts of the compiler itself. A commercial product may bundle and use the ocaml compilers and run-time in their entirety (e.g. by executing ocamlopt) without infringing the license. Commercial products may not link to or lift code from the compilers though, of course, as this counts as redistribution of a modification to the compiler. I can see this descending into a discussion about the definition of linking in the presence of HOFs... :-) IMHO, academics be encouraged by their funding bodies to release their code under an artistic/BSD license because they are funded by the tax payer. Naturally, this shouldn't apply to me. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.