Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml license - why not GPL?

[Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>]

From: Jozef Kosoru <zyzstar@uid0.sk>

> 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.

Actually, this is already LGPL (with an exception to make it even more
liberal!) for the runtime and the libraries.
So your only problem with the QPL would be if you need to modify the
compiler itself, and are not happy with the conditions of the QPL.

> 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).

The QPL is an official open-source license.
There is nothing preventing you to include the compiler in your
package, as long as you make it clear that the compiler itself is
copyrighted and under the QPL.
(One question is whether you need to include all the tools and
libraries from the distribution, as the QPL seems to imply. I believe
this can be clarified with the developpers if needed.)

So I don't really see your problem...

Jacques Garrigue