From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr 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 BFBB4BBA7 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 13:08:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp2.wanadoo.fr (smtp2.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.29]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k17C8ePp008615 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 13:08:40 +0100 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf0201.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 523B11C00476 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 13:08:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from pegasos (AStrasbourg-251-1-96-252.w81-49.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.49.225.252]) by mwinf0201.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 179D01C00474 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 13:08:40 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20060207120840970.179D01C00474@mwinf0201.wanadoo.fr Received: from sven by pegasos with local (Exim 4.50) id 1F6RcH-0008P7-0u; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:06:41 +0100 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 13:06:35 +0100 To: Alessandro Baretta Cc: OCaml Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License question: tricky issue Message-ID: <20060207120635.GA32002@localhost.localdomain> References: <43E852AA.1020805@barettadeit.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <43E852AA.1020805@barettadeit.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: Sven Luther X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 43E88DC8.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 sven:01 luther:01 sven:01 luther:01 baretta:01 tarball:01 ocaml:01 tarball:01 tarballs:01 non-free:01 ocaml:01 tarballs:01 xcaml:01 toolchain:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.8 required=5.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 08:56:26AM +0100, Alessandro Baretta wrote: > Would the authors/copyright holders consider a tarball containing an Ocaml > source tarball plus other source code and other source tarballs as a > distribution of their software or as a derived work? The question is tricky > due to the non-free public license adopted by Inria originally. Hum, ... I am not sure what non-free-ness you mention here, but i believe that as of today the distribution of ocaml is covered by a free licence, at least considered so by debian, and you know what that covers. > I ask this question because I would like to release a source distribution > for Ocaml containing all source tarballs and all patches needed to build a > complete AS/Xcaml toolchain. This includes one or more stable ocaml > tarballs, an ocaml-cvs directory (for testing purposes), a metaocaml > tarball, and a quite a few libraries (findlib, pcre-ocaml, ocamlnet, pxp, > extlib, postgres and a bunch more). If I understand the QPL correctly, > should this project be considered a derived work I would not be allowed to > distribute it; whereas, if it is considered a distribution, à la Debian, > there should be no problem. Nope, clause 4 of the QPL clearly grants you rights to distribute not only the binaries of ocaml but also modified forms of said binaries, provided they come under the QPL, and clause 3 of the QPL provides you with the right to distribute modifications in such a way as the original pristine tarball can be clearly identified. So, i would say your question is a non-issue. > Notice that all modifications to other peoples code exist in my > distribution in the form of patch files, which are automatically applied > before the build process begins. Indeed, this is what the QPL clause 3 asks you, you should be fine. i am not in any way related to the ocaml team Friendly, Sven Luther