Xavier Leroy wrote:

> Now the problem is that apparently there is no existing license that
> matches these three criteria.  The LGPL was chosen before we realized
> all its implications w.r.t. static linking.  But popular licenses such
> as BSD or X don't meet criterion 2.  Our current hope is that the LGPL
> with a special exception to paragraph 6 saying "you can link with our
> code any way you like" would fulfill all three requirements.

> As I said above, the other standard licenses (e.g. BSD, X) don't offer
> enough guarantees about the OCaml libraries and runtime themselves
> remaining open source.

Well,

nobody can "hide" the already existing code if it is under a BSD license.
X11, NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD ... still exist and are "Open Source"
although anyone is allowed to take the code, add features and
sell binary only versions. All those projects will live as long
as somebody cares about them and maintains them. Even if this
is not the case, the latest code will still remain "Open Source".
Even binary only versions will only succeed if the features added
are so overwhelmingly good that customers will buy it and accept
the fact that they won't get the source. If it is just "take the
source, modify it somewhat, compile it, and sell the binaries" -
nobody will buy that since there is always the Open Source implementation
available for free which can be easily modified to the needs.
Nobody can take away the original source anyway. So I can't see
any negative impact of using a BSD style license. But that is
of course the decision of the people owning the copyright.

Bye,
  Ronald
-------------------
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