>   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: 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