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 IAA10645; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:12:50 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA10654 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:12:49 +0100 (MET) Received: from wetware.wetware.com (wetware.wetware.com [199.108.16.1]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id fAU7Cm115072 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:12:48 +0100 (MET) Received: from kallisti.apple.com([208.177.152.18]) (3037 bytes) by wetware.wetware.com via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp (sender: ) id for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 23:12:44 -0800 (PST) (Smail-3.2.0.114 2001-Aug-6 #1 built 2001-Nov-28) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 23:12:38 -0800 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v475) Cc: The Trade To: Florian Hars From: james woodyatt In-Reply-To: <20011129094736.C11328@hars> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.475) Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Thursday, November 29, 2001, at 12:47 , Florian Hars wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 05:25:23PM -0800, james woodyatt wrote: >> The two licenses that spring to mind most readily to me are the >> Artistic >> License, and the Apple Public Source License. > > But if you consider using these, you might want to take the FSF's > stance on these license into account: [...] M. Leroy expressed an interest in licenses that meet the OSI definition of an "open source" license. Both of these licenses are certified by the OSI, and INRIA would probably meet little resistance if they introduced a license for OCaml that says essentially the same things. For reasons you should be able to infer from my previous post on this subject, I am probably less concerned with the stance taken by the FSF than you. All I will say on that subject is that you quoted the parts of their page in which the FSF criticizes older, now-superseded versions of both the Artistic and the Apple Public Source licenses. In the case of the Artistic license, the FSF says the newer "clarified" version is compatible with the GPL. In the case of the APSL, all their complaints but one (i.e. the freedom to deploy modifications to the software "in private" not being quite as absolute as they would like) is addressed by the latest version. An argument can be made that the FSF is holding to this one predicate primarily to further a narrow political agenda. No, I don't feel like making that case. So yeah, if compatibility with the GPL and achieving the blessings of the FSF is a concern: go with the "clarified" Artistic license, or something like it. Everyone should be happy. On the other hand, if any of these licenses are ever tested in court, I think the odds favor the APSL being found more enforceable than any of the ones the FSF approves. I would think INRIA might be interested in the protections against patent abuse found in the APSL, which is why I mentioned it as an alternative. I will now shut up about licensing issues. It's a dull, tedious subject, and M. Leroy has already said enough to reassure me INRIA will not be changing the license for OCaml to something I would find a disappointment. -- j h woodyatt "...the antidote to misinformation is more information, not less." --vinton cerf ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr