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 NAA01584 for caml-redistribution; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:25:27 +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 PAA20903 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 15:39:58 +0100 (MET) Received: from ruby (krusty103.zip.com.au [61.8.16.103]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA18620 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 15:39:26 +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 HAA00741; Tue, 7 Dec 1999 07:55:33 +1100 Sender: weis Message-ID: <384C22C5.24C5954B@maxtal.com.au> Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 07:55:33 +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 To: Markus Mottl CC: OCAML Subject: Re: Objective Caml 2.03/4 released References: <199912052334.AAA32101@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Markus Mottl wrote: > > > Why was such a grossly restrictive, anti-freedom licence chosen? > > Or do I mis-understand it? > > Well, some people would think the other way round... ;-) Of course: those with jobs working for Universities of other institutions often forget where THEIR pay packets come from. So they want to create a pool of software exclusive to them. This is not freedom. > > 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. > > I wouldn't say that there is reason for fearing that you cannot distribute > your sources as binary only: I am glad you have this interpretation. > The runtime system and other things that go into the executable are subject > to the GNU *Library* General Public License. > > This section might be relevant to you: > > 4. You may copy and distribute the Library (or a portion or > derivative of it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form > under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you accompany it > with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, This includes modifications to the library. > So if I get it right, the only thing you have to do when shipping your > binaries is to either ship the sources *of the runtime libraries*, too, or > to provide an URL to the distribution directory of INRIA so that people can > always access the sources of the linked in libraries. I hope you get it right :-) > > 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. > > If this were true, no commercial company would want to use gcc - and I am > sure that there are plenty which do. Binaries produced by gcc can link dynamically to the libraries, and so do not contain them. > Reality also shows that it *is* possible to develop free software in > production quality (and higher...). Yes, when the funding comes from some large organisation. I'm a small organisation :-) When I have enough money coming in to be able to eat, keep a roof over my head, and pay for computing facilities, then perhaps I feel more confident giving away sources on the basis that eventually enough people will want to pay me for support. > in my eyes the results of public > research *should* also stay free for the public. In my eyes, the people that fund the research own the results: the public usually. But that is not the same as GPL'd software, which prohibits people adding value hiding the added value. > I'd say that making money by writing software will sooner or later change > to making money by providing support and consulting. Even Richard Stallman > does not object to this - and, as far as I know, makes a living from it... I agree that this is desirable. I would like to reach that position. But until I do, for example, while seeking funding for further research and development, I'd like the option of preventing other, better funded, organisations simply stealing my efforts. -- 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