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 FAA04719; Thu, 31 May 2001 05:12:09 +0200 (MET DST) 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 FAA04745 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 05:12:08 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from shell5.ba.best.com (shell5.ba.best.com [206.184.139.136]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f4V3C7108475 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 05:12:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (bpr@localhost) by shell5.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.sh) with ESMTP id UAA24934; Wed, 30 May 2001 20:11:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 20:11:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Rogoff To: Jacques Garrigue cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] CDK license In-Reply-To: <20010531112732Q.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Thu, 31 May 2001, Jacques Garrigue wrote: > On the same line of thought, the ocaml compiler is released under the > QPL, which is not compatible with the GPL. > This means that you cannot build a toplevel including any library > under the GPL, since it would be in contradiction with either of the > two licenses. > At the very least, it seems necessary to add a clause to the GPL, > saying that linking to QPLed libraries is allowed, just as RMS himself > suggested for KDE software. At this point, I'd suggest that we _really_ need to consult a lawyer who is familiar with intellectual property law and the GPL. As far as libraries go, I think the LGPL is a fair compromise between the really dedicated RMS followers (once affectionately referred to as "license ayatollahs" on this very list :) and those who are willing to tolerate a variety of kinds of software, including proprietary. I understand the reasons for going GPL instead of LGPL ("resistance is futile, prepare to be assimilated, or don't use this code") but if it's going to be that way then I don't want my Consortium dues to fund work on the CDK. > Another remark is that lablgtk-1.2.0 contains a COPYING file, saying > that the library itself is LGPL, examples are more or less public > domain, and applications are _not_ open source. Claiming that all this > is GPL is clearly wrong. This COPYING is not there, and no README file > either, which is the only documentation for lablgtk :-) > > (This is not a rant: I am the one who didn't check) It's a tricky business, this license stuff, and a lot less fun than coding ;-). -- Brian ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr