From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id MAA30326; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 12:26:35 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA30115 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 12:26:34 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mrwall.kal.com (mrwall.kal.com [194.193.14.236]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with SMTP id f56AQXL06953 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 12:26:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mrwall.kal.com [194.193.14.236] (HELO localhost) by mrwall.kal.com (AltaVista Mail V2.0J/2.0J BL25J listener) id 0000_0050_3b1e_05fa_5faf; Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:29:14 +0100 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: [Caml-list] CDK license MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0 Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:24:57 +0100 Message-ID: <8E31D6933A2FE64F8AE3CC1381EEDCE704C231@NT.kal.com> Thread-Topic: [Caml-list] CDK license Thread-Index: AcDub4f5+FFpoZpVR9CGBkKJ9vDIKwAAjAIw From: "Dave Berry" To: "Sven LUTHER" Cc: , Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > -----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. >=20 > Yes, including taking all your code, doing some modification=20 > 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=20 > changes they do, then by all means, they can pay me for a commercial=20 > 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