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: 2001-11-30 (08:50)
From: proff@i...
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml
> :                Code
> :               /    \
> :             /        \
> :        GPLisation   Artification
> : 
> : At no stage does the Artistic License modify the GPL.
> Dual licensing is an implicit modification of the GPL:
>       5. You are not required to accept [the GPL], since you have not
>     signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
> [etc]

No. The GPL is not retrospective. Consequently it can't climb the
deriviation tree to get at the Artistic code. Thus this is not a
modification of the GPL.

In any event, copyrights can only be held by individuals and or
registered organisations. The GPL itself is not such an entity.
The FSF is, but (in this argument) only as far as the GPL is
concerned.  Provided all authors agree, copyright restrictions can
be changed to anything thing they want at anytime. However, if they
do not agree, that portion which falls under the malcontents'
copyright must be completely excised.  The FSF is the copyright
holder of the GPL ("COPYING") and has not granted permission for
it to be modified or used in another in a non-GPL setting (including
by appending clauses).

 Julian Assange        |If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people
                       |together to collect wood or assign them tasks and          |work, but rather teach them to long for the endless  |immensity of the sea. -- Antoine de Saint Exupery
Bug reports:  FAQ:
To unsubscribe, mail  Archives: