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 61EE7BC8B for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:57:40 +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 j0V0vdBM024213 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:57:39 +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 BAA08481 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:57:39 +0100 (MET) Received: from kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.1]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0V0vaZm025205 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:57:38 +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 j0V0vZOX021462; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 09:57:35 +0900 (JST) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 09:57:11 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20050131.095711.27629180.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> To: sven.luther@wanadoo.fr Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml license - why not GPL? From: Jacques Garrigue In-Reply-To: <20050130062235.GC32348@pegasos> References: <20050128164744.GG13718@osiris.uid0.sk> <20050129.150538.78035843.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> <20050130062235.GC32348@pegasos> 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 nez-perce with ID 41FD8283.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 41FD8281.000 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 gpl:01 ocaml:01 flamewar:01 debian-legal:01 lgpl:01 compiler:01 compiler:01 jacques:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: From: Sven Luther > > 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. Well, I don't know who disputed this, at least it is an OSI recognized open-source license, which I believe to be the definition of "officially open-source". To the best of my knowledge, Trolltech decided to release a GPL'ed version of Qt because the QPL is not compatible with the GPL, which is no surprise at all: by definition the GPL is only compatible with itself, or strictly weaker licenses, like BSD or LGPL. This is less of a problem with ocaml, because the part covered by the QPL is the compiler, not the library, so this should only concern persons hacking the compiler itself. Jacques Garrigue