Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml license - why not GPL?

[Alex Baretta <alex@barettadeit.com>]

Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 08:03:47AM +0100, Alex Baretta wrote:
> 
>>Hmmm... This is an interesting point! The toplevel library includes the 
>>compiler code, which is licensed under the QPL, but yet somehow must be 
>>allowed to link to GPLed libraries and programs. If the toplevel library 
>> may not be linked with GPLed code, then the toplevel itself become 
>>hardly usable, and a significant portion of my code, which is GPLed and 
>>links the toplevel library, would be illegal.
> 
> 
> Indeed.

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? Or am I to 
pursue myself because the QPL breaks my own GPLed code?

>>Might the caml breeders please comment on this issue?

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...

Alex

-- 
*********************************************************************
http://www.barettadeit.com/
Baretta DE&IT
A division of Baretta SRL

tel. +39 02 370 111 55
fax. +39 02 370 111 54

Our technology:

The Application System/Xcaml (AS/Xcaml)
<http://www.asxcaml.org/>

The FreerP Project
<http://www.freerp.org/>