RE: [Caml-list] CDK license

["Dave Berry" <Dave@kal.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sven LUTHER [mailto:luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr]
> > I would encourage people to use an X/BSD-like license for code
whereever
> > possible. It saves you all this hassle with determining what is and
is
> > not allowed, and which code may be linked or distributed with which
> > other code.
> 
> Yes, including taking all your code, doing some modification 
> to it, and giving nothing back.

Yes.  If someone wishes to do that, they can.  Most people will choose
to make changes available, because it benefits them if the open source
library grows.  And if they don't, at least they are still using OCaml
libraries, and increasing the usage of OCaml.  To me, this far outweighs
any disadvantage.

> If someone wants to take my code, and not contribute back any 
> changes they do, then by all means, they can pay me for a commercial 
> licenced version.

This is unlikely to happen, although it depends on the terms you offer.
For one thing, the extra expense in negotiating the contract will put
many people off.  If you require a run-time, per-installation, license,
the extra cost may prevent someone from using the code.  This actually
happened with MLWorks -- the license of SML/TK required a run-time cost
that we simply couldn't afford.

For the CDK, the situation is even more complex.  There are many
authors, of many separate packages.  Negotiation and license
arrangements could be hideously complex.  This could encourage people to
develop their own counterparts, which would be a Bad Thing.

If your main aim is to protect your code from unwanted use, then go
ahead and use the GPL or LGPL.  If your main aim is to get your code
used as widely as possible, use a less restrictive license.  Surely the
aim of the CDK is to promote wide use, rather than to restrict it?

Dave.
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr.  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr