Re: [Caml-list] License question: tricky issue

[Alessandro Baretta <a.baretta@barettadeit.com>]

Xavier Leroy wrote:
>>Would the authors/copyright holders consider a tarball containing an
>>Ocaml source tarball plus other source code and other source tarballs as
>>a distribution of their software or as a derived work? The question is
>>tricky due to the non-free public license adopted by Inria originally.
>>[...]
>>Notice that all modifications to other peoples code exist in my
>>distribution in the form of patch files, which are automatically applied
>>before the build process begins.

> So, please go ahead with your distributions plans, this is exactly how
> we intend the Caml source to be used.

Thank you very much. I would like to make sure that the "distribution"--one or 
more ocaml tarballs, a bunch of tarballs by various authors, plus some patches 
and scripts from myself--is not considered a "derived work" under the terms of 
the QPL. I would not like this to be the case, as the QPL authorizes the 
original authors to use the "derived works" in non free ways: this is the 
non-freeness in the QPL.

All this sounds very much nonsensical to us programmers, but it might make a 
considerable difference to managers and lawyers.

Alex



-- 
*********************************************************************

Ing. Alessandro Baretta

Studio Baretta
http://studio.baretta.com/

Consulenza Tecnologica e Ingegneria Industriale
Technological Consulting and Industrial Engineering

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