Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
Re: [Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Xavier Leroy <xavier.leroy@i...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml
>   I've just subscribed to the list and I'm entering this interesting
>   discussion. I'm sorry, I may have missed the previous messages.
>   I know that OCaml is distributed under the QPL and this license
>   is not GPL-compatible. This means that people (Ocaml program
>   writers) cannot redistribute their programs under the GPL
>   (they have to choose LGPL instead, for example).
>   Some people came up with a dual-licensing solution. The most
>   obvious examples are Perl and Qt.
>   A dual QPL/GPL license for OCaml could solve the problem
>   that is mentioned.

Please read the licensing conditions for OCaml.  All parts that can be
linked with user's code (runtime, libraries) are distributed under the
LGPL, possibly with a future exception to clause 6 so that users can
link with this code without any additional requirements on their code.

The QPL covers only the OCaml compilers themselves -- and of course
not the code they generate.

> Daniel de Rauglaudre wrote:
> > The point is the LGPL, not the GPL. We don't want the GPL to contaminate
> > users programs.
>   I think that freedom is the right to choose the licence for the
>   software you write.

Precisely.  That's why, say, putting the libraries under the GPL would
be unacceptable; and even putting them under the LGPL (without
exceptions) isn't quite enough to achieve this goal.

- Xavier Leroy
Bug reports:  FAQ:
To unsubscribe, mail  Archives: