From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: weis Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id XAA22519 for caml-redistribution; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 23:28:55 +0100 (MET) 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 SAA11682 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 18:51:19 +0100 (MET) Received: from ruby (ike126.zip.com.au [61.8.10.126]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA18180 for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 18:51:15 +0100 (MET) Received: from maxtal.com.au (IDENT:root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ruby (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA00737 for ; Sun, 5 Dec 1999 04:46:38 +1100 Sender: weis Message-ID: <3849537C.4595B14C@maxtal.com.au> Date: Sun, 05 Dec 1999 04:46:36 +1100 From: skaller Organization: Maxtal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: Objective Caml 2.03/4 released References: <19991119183057.60471@pauillac.inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have just read the LICENCE conditions for ocaml 2.04, and I'm seriously concerned, I may be forced to stay with the more liberal licence of 2.02. Why was such a grossly restrictive, anti-freedom licence chosen? Or do I mis-understand it? I've been working on a product using ocaml for some time, and I need to make money out of it. The new licence seems to preclude this, forcing me to give away my source. Even worse, my clients will not accept this licence, which I would be forced to pass on. The product is an interpreter/compiler for Python, which is 'free for any use'. My understanding of the 2.02 licence was that it was also free for any use (provided INRIA is acknowlegded). There was, some time in the past, a discussion about persuading management to switch to ocaml. The new licence is a guarrantee it will NEVER be used for serious software development. No one can afford to develop a production quality software, and then be forced to give the it away. The impact on research is serious: no serious researcher could sensibly commit to using ocaml for any kind of valuable project, since it could not be commericalised without a total rewrite. As it happens, it is my desire to provide the my product 'free for any use', but I need that to be my decision, since I have to generate income to live on somehow. I think there is a gross misunderstanding of 'freedom' here. Do we want 'free software' to consist of a combination of code submitted by amateurs, and people employed by institutions, most of which are funded by theft (taxation)? Why are people that expect to work on software and actually get paid for it by the users, being discriminated against? Please tell me I don't have to go back to using C++. :-( -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au 10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia homepage: http://www.maxtal.com.au/~skaller voice: 61-2-9660-0850