Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[Issac Trotts <ijtrotts@ucdavis.edu>]

Sven Luther wrote:

>On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:45:34AM +0900, Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
>  
>
>>>>>Regarding license ... I suppose LGPL could be fine.
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>The new "user code library" is a good idea, but GPL
>>>>and LGPL are both bad ideas.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>The best idea is to use the same licence the ocaml runtime currently
>>>uses :
>>>
>>>The Library is distributed under the terms of the GNU Library General
>>>Public License version 2 (found in /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2
>>>on debian systems).
>>>      
>>>
>>And what about a "do anything you want with it, including compiling,
>>modifiying, inserting bugs" license ?
>>I mean, this kind of collaborative work shouldn't even be (c)
>>(although it's fair to maintain a list of contributors somewhere in the
>>distribution)
>>    
>>
>
>The problem with that is that anyone can take your work, modify it, and
>don't give anything back, look at apple for example, they took the BSD
>kernel, and don't give anything back. I think licencing is the main
>reason they choose a BSD kernel over a linux one back then. I suppose
>some people (including me) would not be willing to contribute code under
>these circunstances, so i don't think it would be best for the project,
>since the aim is to put in common the code.
>
It would be more accurate to say that they "copied" the BSD kernel. 
 "Taking"
usually means that the one who had it no longer has it.  Why should it 
matter
if they use information so long as they don't take away other people's 
freedom
to use it?  

Issac Trotts



-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners