Ocaml license - why not GPL?

Ocaml license - why not GPL?

[Jozef Kosoru]

Hello,

I would like to ask O'Caml developers why they have chosen QPL license
for the compiler and GPL for libraries?

Of course they have a full right to choose a license they want but I
think that GPL for the compiler and LGPL for the libraries would be a
much better choice.

Now it is for example impossible to distribute an O'Caml package as a
part of some O'Caml GPL project source package. Users have to know that
this program is written in some unusual programming language and they 
have to download and compile the O'Campl compiler first. For them it
would be much better to just download the application sources and type
/configure; make; make install
.and build process would compile the ocaml compiler (if it's not already
present) and then compile application sources and install native
executable (just like C/C++ apps).

Best regards,
	Jozef

-- 
jozef kosoru
http://zyzstar.kosoru.com

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

[David Brown]

On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 05:47:44PM +0100, Jozef Kosoru wrote:

> Now it is for example impossible to distribute an O'Caml package as a
> part of some O'Caml GPL project source package. Users have to know that
> this program is written in some unusual programming language and they 
> have to download and compile the O'Campl compiler first. For them it
> would be much better to just download the application sources and type
> /configure; make; make install
> .and build process would compile the ocaml compiler (if it's not already
> present) and then compile application sources and install native
> executable (just like C/C++ apps).

I'm not exactly sure what your question is, but there is nothing about the
QPL or GPL that would forbid you from distributing the sources of the ocaml
compiler with another product.  Both licenses would allow this.  The only
thing that would be restricted would be if your program links with or uses
parts of the compiler itself.

Also, the ocaml library contains an exception that allows linking with
non-GPL programs, and is fairly liberal.

Dave

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

[Luc Maranget]

> Hello,
> 
> I would like to ask O'Caml developers why they have chosen QPL license
> for the compiler and GPL for libraries?
> 
> Of course they have a full right to choose a license they want but I
> think that GPL for the compiler and LGPL for the libraries would be a
> much better choice.

Hello,

Some explanations on the license choice for O'Caml can be found on
the web
<http://caml.inria.fr/ocaml/LICENSE.html>
It may answer some of your questions.



> 
> Now it is for example impossible to distribute an O'Caml package as a
> part of some O'Caml GPL project source package. Users have to know that
> this program is written in some unusual programming language and they 
> have to download and compile the O'Campl compiler first. For them it
> would be much better to just download the application sources and type
> /configure; make; make install
> .and build process would compile the ocaml compiler (if it's not already
> present) and then compile application sources and install native
> executable (just like C/C++ apps).

As far as I understand, nothing in a licence prevents easy configuration
and installation (and indeed installing Ocaml from the site
<http://caml.inria.fr/index-eng.html> is what you describe
(configure/make/make install)

As I see it, different packaging organizations have different policies
as regards licenses...
 
> 
> Best regards,
> 	Jozef
> 


-- Luc Maranget

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

[Jon Harrop]

On Friday 28 January 2005 17:08, David Brown wrote:
> The only
> thing that would be restricted would be if your program links with or uses
> parts of the compiler itself.

A commercial product may bundle and use the ocaml compilers and run-time in 
their entirety (e.g. by executing ocamlopt) without infringing the license. 
Commercial products may not link to or lift code from the compilers though, 
of course, as this counts as redistribution of a modification to the 
compiler.

I can see this descending into a discussion about the definition of linking in 
the presence of HOFs... :-)

IMHO, academics be encouraged by their funding bodies to release their code 
under an artistic/BSD license because they are funded by the tax payer. 
Naturally, this shouldn't apply to me.

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.

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

[Jacques Garrigue]

From: Jozef Kosoru <zyzstar@uid0.sk>

> I would like to ask O'Caml developers why they have chosen QPL license
> for the compiler and GPL for libraries?
> 
> Of course they have a full right to choose a license they want but I
> think that GPL for the compiler and LGPL for the libraries would be a
> much better choice.

Actually, this is already LGPL (with an exception to make it even more
liberal!) for the runtime and the libraries.
So your only problem with the QPL would be if you need to modify the
compiler itself, and are not happy with the conditions of the QPL.

> Now it is for example impossible to distribute an O'Caml package as a
> part of some O'Caml GPL project source package. Users have to know that
> this program is written in some unusual programming language and they 
> have to download and compile the O'Campl compiler first. For them it
> would be much better to just download the application sources and type
> /configure; make; make install
> .and build process would compile the ocaml compiler (if it's not already
> present) and then compile application sources and install native
> executable (just like C/C++ apps).

The QPL is an official open-source license.
There is nothing preventing you to include the compiler in your
package, as long as you make it clear that the compiler itself is
copyrighted and under the QPL.
(One question is whether you need to include all the tools and
libraries from the distribution, as the QPL seems to imply. I believe
this can be clarified with the developpers if needed.)

So I don't really see your problem...

Jacques Garrigue

Re: Ocaml license - why not GPL?

[Stefan Monnier]

>> The only thing that would be restricted would be if your program links
>> with or uses parts of the compiler itself.

> A commercial product may bundle and use the ocaml compilers and run-time in
> their entirety (e.g. by executing ocamlopt) without infringing the license.
> Commercial products may not link to or lift code from the compilers though,
> of course, as this counts as redistribution of a modification to the
> compiler.

The GPL does not put any restriction on commercial use.  Only on
proprietary use.  Do not confuse the two.

> IMHO, academics be encouraged by their funding bodies to release their
> code under an artistic/BSD license because they are funded by the tax
> payer.  Naturally, this shouldn't apply to me.
[...]
> Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.

AFAIK much consulting work pays for the service, not for the code, in which
case GPL code can be used without any problem.


        Stefan

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

[Sven Luther]

On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 05:47:44PM +0100, Jozef Kosoru wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I would like to ask O'Caml developers why they have chosen QPL license
> for the compiler and GPL for libraries?
> 
> Of course they have a full right to choose a license they want but I
> think that GPL for the compiler and LGPL for the libraries would be a
> much better choice.
> 
> Now it is for example impossible to distribute an O'Caml package as a
> part of some O'Caml GPL project source package. Users have to know that
> this program is written in some unusual programming language and they 
> have to download and compile the O'Campl compiler first. For them it
> would be much better to just download the application sources and type
> /configure; make; make install
> .and build process would compile the ocaml compiler (if it's not already
> present) and then compile application sources and install native
> executable (just like C/C++ apps).

Jozef, 

With the current licence, which is not strictly the QPL anymore, please read
it, it is perfectly acceptable to distribute ocaml into debian/main, so i
doubt there is any additional restriction you may have for whatever obscure
need you may have.

The only real problem is if you want to link your stuff with the ocaml
compiler pseudo-QPLed code. But mere agregation, even if it is Makefile
enabled, do not cause the GPL/QPL incompatibility to come to life, only true
linking.

And anyway, real OSes have ocaml packages :)

Friendly,

Sven Luther

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

[Sven Luther]

On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 03:05:38PM +0900, Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> From: Jozef Kosoru <zyzstar@uid0.sk>
> 
> > I would like to ask O'Caml developers why they have chosen QPL license
> > for the compiler and GPL for libraries?
> > 
> > Of course they have a full right to choose a license they want but I
> > think that GPL for the compiler and LGPL for the libraries would be a
> > much better choice.
> 
> Actually, this is already LGPL (with an exception to make it even more
> liberal!) for the runtime and the libraries.
> So your only problem with the QPL would be if you need to modify the
> compiler itself, and are not happy with the conditions of the QPL.
> 
> > Now it is for example impossible to distribute an O'Caml package as a
> > part of some O'Caml GPL project source package. Users have to know that
> > this program is written in some unusual programming language and they 
> > have to download and compile the O'Campl compiler first. For them it
> > would be much better to just download the application sources and type
> > /configure; make; make install
> > .and build process would compile the ocaml compiler (if it's not already
> > present) and then compile application sources and install native
> > executable (just like C/C++ apps).
> 
> The QPL is an official open-source license.

Well, it seems that this same fact is highly disputed, and trolltech did in
fact dual licence Qt under the GPL too. The current ocaml licence was modified
from plain QPL though recently, after 2-4 week of intense flamewar on
debian-legal, and there are some clause yet in it which where subject to
discussion.

> There is nothing preventing you to include the compiler in your
> package, as long as you make it clear that the compiler itself is
> copyrighted and under the QPL.

True.

> (One question is whether you need to include all the tools and
> libraries from the distribution, as the QPL seems to imply. I believe
> this can be clarified with the developpers if needed.)
> 
> So I don't really see your problem...

Indeed.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

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

[Jacques Garrigue]

From: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>

> > The QPL is an official open-source license.
> 
> Well, it seems that this same fact is highly disputed, and trolltech did in
> fact dual licence Qt under the GPL too. The current ocaml licence was modified
> from plain QPL though recently, after 2-4 week of intense flamewar on
> debian-legal, and there are some clause yet in it which where subject to
> discussion.

Well, I don't know who disputed this, at least it is an OSI recognized
open-source license, which I believe to be the definition of
"officially open-source".

To the best of my knowledge, Trolltech decided to release a GPL'ed
version of Qt because the QPL is not compatible with the GPL, which is
no surprise at all: by definition the GPL is only compatible with
itself, or strictly weaker licenses, like BSD or LGPL.

This is less of a problem with ocaml, because the part covered by the
QPL is the compiler, not the library, so this should only concern
persons hacking the compiler itself.

Jacques Garrigue

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

[Alex Baretta]

Jacques Garrigue wrote:

> To the best of my knowledge, Trolltech decided to release a GPL'ed
> version of Qt because the QPL is not compatible with the GPL, which is
> no surprise at all: by definition the GPL is only compatible with
> itself, or strictly weaker licenses, like BSD or LGPL.
> 
> This is less of a problem with ocaml, because the part covered by the
> QPL is the compiler, not the library, so this should only concern
> persons hacking the compiler itself.
> 
> Jacques Garrigue

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.

Might the caml breeders please comment on this issue?

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/>

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

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 09:57:11AM +0900, Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> From: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
> 
> > > The QPL is an official open-source license.
> > 
> > Well, it seems that this same fact is highly disputed, and trolltech did in
> > fact dual licence Qt under the GPL too. The current ocaml licence was modified
> > from plain QPL though recently, after 2-4 week of intense flamewar on
> > debian-legal, and there are some clause yet in it which where subject to
> > discussion.
> 
> Well, I don't know who disputed this, at least it is an OSI recognized
> open-source license, which I believe to be the definition of
> "officially open-source".

There is a 200+ thread on debian-legal i can point you too if you like. If i
remember well, the problematic clauses where :

  1) the choice of venue clause is probably illegal in most countries, since
  you have to sue in the court where the defendant lives or does business, and
  imposing Paris is not accepatble.

  2) the clause 6c, which causes some burdensome constraint on developer of
  third party product linking with the code. The clause is also confuse and
  difficult to intepret, meaning that any third party coder has to keep the
  code version around forever waiting for the whim of original authors. It
  also forbids private releases of third party code, which altough not
  mentioned in the DFSG is considered as one of the elemental freedoms. Notice
  that matters are additionally confused by the fact that clause 6 speaks
  about linking, which applies to works using the library (well, the compiler
  in the ocaml case, but Qt was designed with libraries in mind), and not
  modified works, altough the differenciation between both is not really the
  same.

These two problematic clauses where dropped by Xavier and the ocaml team with
3.08.2, so there is no problem. The other problematic clause, which was under
discussion, but not considered a show-stopper, or rather, i used the preffered
debian-legal tactic of lengthening the thread until everyone got bored, and
only a vocal minority remained to not-be-happy about this once the two other
points were solved is :

  3) Clause 3b, which imposes a dissymetry of rights between the ocaml
  developers and other developers reusing code. The reused code is made
  available for re-usage in ocaml, under whatever licence the ocaml team
  choses in addition to the QPL, but this is not true the other way around.
  Notice that a strict interpretation, where one argues that if work B is
  linked with work A, then both B is a derivative work of work A, but also you
  can consider work A as a derivative of work B, once work A include code from
  work B. This is especially dubious once the amount of code in work B is
  greater than the amount of code in work A. This kind of interpretation would
  allow anyone whose code has been integrated in ocaml to relicence ocaml
  under whatever licence, altough i believe this will lead to a lengthy court
  case, and the judge in the end will consider the relative importance of both
  code bases, and maybe some chronology of the code bases. IANAL though.

Furthermore, the QPL is also non-free, which means aside from the choice of
venue/law, it cannot be modified, which means the ocaml patch has been forced
to do some patching of the licence to solve the above issues.

As you see, the matter is far from clean, and i believe that the confrontation
was only dropped because Trolltech dual-licenced Qt, and the matter mostly
became moot. There is as said, a controversy on the QPL, and many person
consider the decision to admit it as free a mistake that may be returned upon
if there is enough incentive. There is a pointer to that discussion in the
debian-legal thread, but i don't feel like digging it out.

> To the best of my knowledge, Trolltech decided to release a GPL'ed
> version of Qt because the QPL is not compatible with the GPL, which is
> no surprise at all: by definition the GPL is only compatible with
> itself, or strictly weaker licenses, like BSD or LGPL.

Like said above, the issue is not all that clear, and was only dropped because
of the dual-licencing issue. Also the incompatibilities is a bit more subtle
than plain GPL subsumption of weaker licences. The above analysis is fully
orthogonal to the GPL compatibility issue.

> This is less of a problem with ocaml, because the part covered by the
> QPL is the compiler, not the library, so this should only concern
> persons hacking the compiler itself.

Yes, and no, there are some part of the compiler, like the ocamlmktop
generated stuff, or whatever is used by some parts of camlp4 or the cameleon
stuff, or i don't remember exactly, but those that build-depend on the
ocaml-source package in debian, which have a vocation of being reusable and
are covered by the QPL.

Hope this clarifies things a bit, and sorry for the long post, legal issues
are usually bothersome to everyone involved and i was only dragged into those
because of the threat of ocaml having to be moved in non-free by debian.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

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

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 08:03:47AM +0100, Alex Baretta wrote:
> Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> 
> >To the best of my knowledge, Trolltech decided to release a GPL'ed
> >version of Qt because the QPL is not compatible with the GPL, which is
> >no surprise at all: by definition the GPL is only compatible with
> >itself, or strictly weaker licenses, like BSD or LGPL.
> >
> >This is less of a problem with ocaml, because the part covered by the
> >QPL is the compiler, not the library, so this should only concern
> >persons hacking the compiler itself.
> >
> >Jacques Garrigue
> 
> 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.

> Might the caml breeders please comment on this issue?

This is an issue mostly ignored right now, where there is no clear will to
solve it, and given the small case of code concerned, nobody bothered.

That said, given the restrictions of the QPL, the GPL compatibility may be
solved by those modification the ocaml team applied  to 3.08.2, or future
modifications.

Another solution is to licence differently the toplevel code.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

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

[Alex Baretta]

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/>

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

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 08:47:14AM +0100, Alex Baretta wrote:
> 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?

Well, i doubt any of the above will happen. In your case this is not a real
issue anyway, and a simple mail from the ocaml team authorizing your usage
should be ok. Not sure about the GPL part of it though, especially once you
start distributing your work. You may release your own code under the GPL,
with the exception that it may be linked with the ocaml toplevel, which is
what i have done for a kernel driver module which links with a binary only
library. The licence says something like : 

  In addition, as a special exception, BeWAN systems gives permission
  to link the code of this program with the modem SW library
  (modem_ant_PCI.o, modem_ant_USB.o), and distribute linked combinations
  including the two. You are also given permission to redistribute the
  modem SW library (modem_ant_PCI.o, modem_ant_USB.o) with the rest of the
  code.
  You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of
  the code used other than the modem SW library.

This would solve your issue, i think.

> >>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...

I will not speak for Xavier et al. here, but i seriously doubt this is going
to happen anytime soon. That said, it is well possible that someone else who
contributed code to the ocaml, albeit indirectly or whatever, may have the
right to sue you or something. Not sure, though, after further reflexion, i
believe that the problem is not going to come from the ocaml side, but from
your customers side, which will receive your code under the GPL, but not have
all the rights associated with the GPL, and encouter the risk of having their
modifications being reusable by the ocaml team under whatever licence they
chose in addition to the QPL.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
> 
> 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/>
> 

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

[Xavier Leroy]

> Hmmm... This is an interesting point! The toplevel library includes 
> the compiler code, which is licensed under the QPL,

Correct.

> but yet somehow must be allowed to link to GPLed libraries and
> programs.

You meant: "I (Alessandro Baretta) needs to link it to GPLed libraries
and programs".  There is no moral imperative of being able to link
something with GPLed stuff.

> If the toplevel library may not be linked with GPLed code,
> then the toplevel itself become hardly usable,

Again, you meant "... usable to me because of my choice of the GPL".

> and a significant
> portion of my code,  which is GPLed and links the toplevel library,
> would be illegal.
> Might the caml breeders please comment on this issue?

Only if you stop calling me a "caml breeder".  Makes me feel like a
nuclear reactor :-)

More seriously:

- The toplevel library is indeed covered by the QPL.

- Clause 6 of the QPL is pretty clear.  In summary, it stipulates that
  a QPL-ed library can be linked with pretty much any code that is
  distributed as open source.  But please don't take my words for it:
  read the license.

- The problem in your case is most likely to be with the GPL, which
  puts much stronger requirements on any piece of code that comes
  in contact with GPL-ed code.  But don't take my word for it, as
  I have no expertise (and no interest) in license compatibility issues.
  Read the GPL, consult license experts, make up your mind.

- If it turns out you have a QPL/GPL incompatibility, you have exactly
  three options:
      1) don't use the toplevel library
      2) put your code under another license than the GPL
      3) get a more liberal license for OCaml by becoming a member
         of the Caml Consortium.

> 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?

No, because you didn't violate our license (the requirements set by
the QPL are met).

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

This is more like it :-)  You, or your customers.  Remember,
inconsistent license = no license = nobody can do anything with your code.

> 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...

Again, your problems are not with us.  The ones that could come after
you are your customers.

- Xavier Leroy

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

[skaller]

On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 18:59, Sven Luther wrote:

> > 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...
> 
> I will not speak for Xavier et al. here, but i seriously doubt this is going
> to happen anytime soon. 

LOL! I think the problem is more difficult. Neither FSF nor INRIA
is likely to chase Alex with Dobermans. The problem will be that
the situation throws doubt on claims of ownership or authority
to licence, and that doubt may be an impediement to Alex in
selling his company's services or products. It makes no difference
if the doubts are well founded or not: the issue is with
the perceptions and biases of potential clients.

After all the GPL has been very effective through the
combined power of persuasion backed up with a threat, without
the threat ever having been carried out (AFAIK).


-- 
John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net
voice: 061-2-9660-0850, 
snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia
Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net

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

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 10:00:06AM +0100, Xavier Leroy wrote:
> > Hmmm... This is an interesting point! The toplevel library includes 
> > the compiler code, which is licensed under the QPL,
> 
> Correct.
> 
> > but yet somehow must be allowed to link to GPLed libraries and
> > programs.
> 
> You meant: "I (Alessandro Baretta) needs to link it to GPLed libraries
> and programs".  There is no moral imperative of being able to link
> something with GPLed stuff.
> 
> > If the toplevel library may not be linked with GPLed code,
> > then the toplevel itself become hardly usable,
> 
> Again, you meant "... usable to me because of my choice of the GPL".
> 
> > and a significant
> > portion of my code,  which is GPLed and links the toplevel library,
> > would be illegal.
> > Might the caml breeders please comment on this issue?
> 
> Only if you stop calling me a "caml breeder".  Makes me feel like a
> nuclear reactor :-)
> 
> More seriously:
> 
> - The toplevel library is indeed covered by the QPL.
> 
> - Clause 6 of the QPL is pretty clear.  In summary, it stipulates that
>   a QPL-ed library can be linked with pretty much any code that is
>   distributed as open source.  But please don't take my words for it:
>   read the license.
> 
> - The problem in your case is most likely to be with the GPL, which
>   puts much stronger requirements on any piece of code that comes
>   in contact with GPL-ed code.  But don't take my word for it, as
>   I have no expertise (and no interest) in license compatibility issues.
>   Read the GPL, consult license experts, make up your mind.

No, i think the incompatibility is because the QPL buts stronger obligations
on the user of the code, obligations that go beyond the GPL. Clause 3b is such
an obligation which the GPL doesn't have for example, and thus make it
incompatible with the GPL, which doesn't allow for restrictions beyond those
imposed by the GPL.

Actually from a quick read of the current ocaml licence, i get a feeling that
only Clause 3b remains which is GPL incompatible, it would need another
reading thought to be sure about this. That said, the clause 3b is probably
the clause that was the one considered by the ocaml team to chose the QPL in
the first place, in order to be able to relicence ocaml under the Caml
Consortium umbrella, without needing additional paperwork to integrate outside
patches. A dual-licencing situation would maybe be cleaner, but more
cumbersome for you.

> - If it turns out you have a QPL/GPL incompatibility, you have exactly
>   three options:
>       1) don't use the toplevel library
>       2) put your code under another license than the GPL

The GPL exception mentioned in another mail in this thread should be enough i
think.

>       3) get a more liberal license for OCaml by becoming a member
>          of the Caml Consortium.

/me wonders if becoming part of the Caml Consortium would allow someone to get
a GPLed (or BSDed) version of ocaml :)

> > 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?
> 
> No, because you didn't violate our license (the requirements set by
> the QPL are met).
> 
> > Or am I to pursue myself because the QPL breaks my own GPLed code?
> 
> This is more like it :-)  You, or your customers.  Remember,
> inconsistent license = no license = nobody can do anything with your code.
> 
> > 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...
> 
> Again, your problems are not with us.  The ones that could come after
> you are your customers.

Also my analysis.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

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

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 08:09:45PM +1100, skaller wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 18:59, Sven Luther wrote:
> 
> > > 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...
> > 
> > I will not speak for Xavier et al. here, but i seriously doubt this is going
> > to happen anytime soon. 
> 
> LOL! I think the problem is more difficult. Neither FSF nor INRIA
> is likely to chase Alex with Dobermans. The problem will be that
> the situation throws doubt on claims of ownership or authority
> to licence, and that doubt may be an impediement to Alex in
> selling his company's services or products. It makes no difference
> if the doubts are well founded or not: the issue is with
> the perceptions and biases of potential clients.
> 
> After all the GPL has been very effective through the
> combined power of persuasion backed up with a threat, without
> the threat ever having been carried out (AFAIK).

Well, Alex only needs to add the right GPL exemption for merging with the
ocaml toplevel ...

Mmm, maybe not, after further though, if the incompatibility is indeed in the
QPL Clause 3b, then this will not help, since it imposes further non-GPL
restrictions on the dervied code ...

Friendly,

Sven Luther

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

[Nicolas Cannasse]

> - If it turns out you have a QPL/GPL incompatibility, you have exactly
>   three options:
>       1) don't use the toplevel library
>       2) put your code under another license than the GPL
>       3) get a more liberal license for OCaml by becoming a member
>          of the Caml Consortium.

If I understand well, Alex can choose the (3) and get a license that is GPL
compatible. But as it has been said before the only licenses compatible with
GPL are weaker license, that are "at least" GPL. So a company getting into
the Caml Consortium might get rights to redistribute the compiler as GPL ?
Are you sure about that ? It looks like actually getting into the Consortium
helps with being able to fork privatly the compiler, as Lexifi did, but not
to redistribute a GPL version of this fork. I understand INRIA folks are not
lawyer, neither I am, but it looks logical.

Regards,
Nicolas Cannasse

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

[Xavier Leroy]

> If I understand well, Alex can choose the (3) and get a license that is GPL
> compatible. But as it has been said before the only licenses compatible with
> GPL are weaker license, that are "at least" GPL. So a company getting into
> the Caml Consortium might get rights to redistribute the compiler as GPL ?
> Are you sure about that ?

Yes, that would be allowed as part of the Consortium agreement.  But
you have to keep in mind that Consortium membership is a contract, not
a license, and that this contract is to be renewed every year.  This
means that INRIA can unilaterally refuse that someone becomes a member
of the consortium, or refuse to renew the membership.  

So, if you come to us and say "I want to become a consortium member
and my sole purpose is to redistribute the OCaml compilers under the
GPL", your membership application will most likely be rejected.  And
if you don't tell us but become a member, then redistribute the OCaml
compilers under the GPL, your membership will not be renewed and
you'll lose your special privileges for subsequent OCaml releases.

However, if Alex Barretta comes to us with a licensing plan that
solves his issue but is acceptable to us (i.e. no GPL relicensing of
the whole OCaml compilers), we'll do our best to help.

You see, consortium membership is based on mutual trust and the desire
to do things that will be beneficial to both parties (the member and
INRIA).  Abuse is possible but won't get you very far (except being
labeled as a weasel).

- Xavier Leroy

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

[Nicolas Cannasse]

> You see, consortium membership is based on mutual trust and the desire
> to do things that will be beneficial to both parties (the member and
> INRIA).  Abuse is possible but won't get you very far (except being
> labeled as a weasel).
>
> - Xavier Leroy

I understand well now, I didn't knew about the consortium membership
renewal. Don't take it bad Xavier I was not thinking about abusing the
consortium rules, I was just suprised that such abuse could actually be
possible using relicensing rules. The whole process looks fair enough to be
accepted by industrial users, but maybe lack flexibility for open source
business.

Best Regards,
Nicolas Cannasse

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

[Alex Baretta]

Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
>>- If it turns out you have a QPL/GPL incompatibility, you have exactly
>>  three options:
>>      1) don't use the toplevel library
>>      2) put your code under another license than the GPL
>>      3) get a more liberal license for OCaml by becoming a member
>>         of the Caml Consortium.
> 
> 
> If I understand well, Alex can choose the (3) and get a license that is GPL
> compatible. But as it has been said before the only licenses compatible with
> GPL are weaker license, that are "at least" GPL. So a company getting into
> the Caml Consortium might get rights to redistribute the compiler as GPL ?
> Are you sure about that ? It looks like actually getting into the Consortium
> helps with being able to fork privatly the compiler, as Lexifi did, but not
> to redistribute a GPL version of this fork. I understand INRIA folks are not
> lawyer, neither I am, but it looks logical.

Indeed, Baretta DE&IT plans to become a member of the Consortium. Since 
all our code is released under strict GPL, except for patches to other 
free software projects which are released under the same terms as the 
orginal code, we would request that INRIA licensed to the code to us 
under strict GPL or under terms allowing us to relicense it under GPL.

Will the caml ... ahem ... /authors/¹ allow me to do this?

Alex


¹ Notice that in compliance to Xavier's request I am renouncing my 
historic dichotomy classyfing developers as "caml riders" or "caml 
breeders". I am thinking very hard to come up with a new one. ;)

-- 
*********************************************************************
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/>

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

[Alex Baretta]

Alex Baretta wrote:
> 
> 
> Indeed, Baretta DE&IT plans to become a member of the Consortium. Since 
> all our code is released under strict GPL, except for patches to other 
> free software projects which are released under the same terms as the 
> orginal code, we would request that INRIA licensed to the code to us 
> under strict GPL or under terms allowing us to relicense it under GPL.
> 
> Will the caml ... ahem ... /authors/¹ allow me to do this?
> 

Xavier indirectly answered negatively. But undoubtedly someone competent 
in licensing issues would find a mutually acceptable agreement.

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/>