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 A8963BC8A for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2005 07:25:35 +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 j0U6PYQ3022017 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2005 07:25:34 +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 HAA07399 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2005 07:25:34 +0100 (MET) Received: from smtp3.wanadoo.fr (smtp3.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.28]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0U6PYug028092 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2005 07:25:34 +0100 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf0309.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id E886D1C007C8; Sun, 30 Jan 2005 07:25:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from pegasos (AStrasbourg-251-1-65-234.w82-126.abo.wanadoo.fr [82.126.133.234]) by mwinf0309.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 56CC61C007C1; Sun, 30 Jan 2005 07:25:30 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20050130062530355.56CC61C007C1@mwinf0309.wanadoo.fr Received: from luther by pegasos with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Cv8To-0008Uf-7x; Sun, 30 Jan 2005 07:22:40 +0100 Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 07:22:36 +0100 To: Jacques Garrigue Cc: zyzstar@uid0.sk, caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml license - why not GPL? Message-ID: <20050130062235.GC32348@pegasos> References: <20050128164744.GG13718@osiris.uid0.sk> <20050129.150538.78035843.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050129.150538.78035843.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: Sven Luther X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 41FC7DDE.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 41FC7DDE.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocaml:01 gpl:01 sven:01 luther:01 sven:01 luther:01 wrote:01 o'caml:01 compiler:01 gpl:01 compiler:01 lgpl:01 lgpl:01 runtime: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: On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 03:05:38PM +0900, Jacques Garrigue wrote: > 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. Well, it seems that this same fact is highly disputed, and trolltech did in fact dual licence Qt under the GPL too. The current ocaml licence was modified from plain QPL though recently, after 2-4 week of intense flamewar on debian-legal, and there are some clause yet in it which where subject to discussion. > 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. True. > (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... Indeed. Friendly, Sven Luther