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 8F187BC88 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:00:08 +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 j0V908ZL007551 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:00:08 +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 KAA23133 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:00:07 +0100 (MET) Received: from yquem.inria.fr (yquem.inria.fr [128.93.8.37]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0V906nb017639; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:00:07 +0100 Received: by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix, from userid 18180) id DF7E9BC8B; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:00:06 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:00:06 +0100 From: Xavier Leroy To: Alex Baretta Cc: Sven Luther , Ocaml Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml license - why not GPL? Message-ID: <20050131090006.GA18352@yquem.inria.fr> References: <20050128164744.GG13718@osiris.uid0.sk> <20050129.150538.78035843.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> <20050130062235.GC32348@pegasos> <20050131.095711.27629180.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> <41FDD853.5090801@barettadeit.com> <20050131073813.GC19902@pegasos> <41FDE282.7040709@barettadeit.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41FDE282.7040709@barettadeit.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 41FDF398.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 41FDF396.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocaml:01 gpl:01 hmmm:01 toplevel:01 compiler:01 baretta:01 toplevel:01 gpl:01 breeder:01 gpl-ed:01 ocaml:01 violate:01 ...:98 ...:98 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: > Hmmm... This is an interesting point! The toplevel library includes > the compiler code, which is licensed under the QPL, Correct. > but yet somehow must be allowed to link to GPLed libraries and > programs. You meant: "I (Alessandro Baretta) needs to link it to GPLed libraries and programs". There is no moral imperative of being able to link something with GPLed stuff. > If the toplevel library may not be linked with GPLed code, > then the toplevel itself become hardly usable, Again, you meant "... usable to me because of my choice of the GPL". > and a significant > portion of my code, which is GPLed and links the toplevel library, > would be illegal. > Might the caml breeders please comment on this issue? Only if you stop calling me a "caml breeder". Makes me feel like a nuclear reactor :-) More seriously: - The toplevel library is indeed covered by the QPL. - Clause 6 of the QPL is pretty clear. In summary, it stipulates that a QPL-ed library can be linked with pretty much any code that is distributed as open source. But please don't take my words for it: read the license. - The problem in your case is most likely to be with the GPL, which puts much stronger requirements on any piece of code that comes in contact with GPL-ed code. But don't take my word for it, as I have no expertise (and no interest) in license compatibility issues. Read the GPL, consult license experts, make up your mind. - If it turns out you have a QPL/GPL incompatibility, you have exactly three options: 1) don't use the toplevel library 2) put your code under another license than the GPL 3) get a more liberal license for OCaml by becoming a member of the Caml Consortium. > This bothers me quite a bit. Am I to expect a legal pursuit from INRIA > for violating the QPL for having released mixed GPL+QPL code? No, because you didn't violate our license (the requirements set by the QPL are met). > Or am I to pursue myself because the QPL breaks my own GPLed code? This is more like it :-) You, or your customers. Remember, inconsistent license = no license = nobody can do anything with your code. > I would really appreciate an official response from the INRIA people. I > think Ocaml is a great tool for commercial free software development, > but in order to be able to build a thriving business I must make sure > that Xavier et al. won't meet me with a team of Dobermans to settle > copyright issues... Again, your problems are not with us. The ones that could come after you are your customers. - Xavier Leroy