Re: [Caml-list] User library license

[Brian Hurt <brian.hurt@qlogic.com>]

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Nicolas Cannasse wrote:

> And what about a "do anything you want with it, including compiling,
> modifiying, inserting bugs" license ?

A) This would require relicensing the code when/if it gets included in the 
standard library.  Which means tracking down every single contributor and 
getting their permission to relicense their work (probably needing a 
signed and witnessed peice of paper).

B) If you have identified some shortcomming in the libraries, the 
probability is that other people have as well, and could benefit from your 
code.

C) I don't want 50 different proprietary versions of the library running 
around.  The original unix schism occurred because people (and companies) 
took the source code, made changes to it, and didn't release the changes.  
Which meant you ended up with 50 different, incompatible, extensions to 
address the same problem.

D) A personal reason: I'm a paid programmer.  Occassionally I accept 
payment in kind- which is what I view the GPL (and LGPL) as.  I, for one, 
would be disinclined to license my code under a BSD or Public Domain style 
license.

> I mean, this kind of collaborative work shouldn't even be (c)
> (although it's fair to maintain a list of contributors somewhere in the
> distribution)

There is a theory in IP law circles that the *only* way a copyrightable
work can become public domain is for the copyright to expire.  And that 
simply distributing the work without a license doesn't mean that a license 
(with arbitrary terms) could be imposed at a later point.

Brian


-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners