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 9FE33BB91 for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2005 07:06:08 +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 j0T668Cd029041 for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2005 07:06:08 +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 HAA32267 for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2005 07:06:07 +0100 (MET) Received: from kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.1]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0T665pb028348 for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2005 07:06:06 +0100 Received: from localhost (suiren [130.54.16.25]) by kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j0T663On015659; Sat, 29 Jan 2005 15:06:03 +0900 (JST) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 15:05:38 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20050129.150538.78035843.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> To: zyzstar@uid0.sk Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml license - why not GPL? From: Jacques Garrigue In-Reply-To: <20050128164744.GG13718@osiris.uid0.sk> References: <20050128164744.GG13718@osiris.uid0.sk> X-Mailer: Mew version 4.1.53 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 41FB27D0.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 41FB27CD.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocaml:01 gpl:01 o'caml:01 compiler:01 gpl:01 compiler:01 lgpl:01 lgpl:01 runtime:01 o'caml:01 ocaml:01 developpers:01 liberal:98 ...: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: From: Jozef Kosoru > 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