And what if the OCaml modification to the LGPL gave you an opt-out from
this clause as well?

Just poking legal fun...

;-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Bacon [mailto:gbacon@fly.hiwaay.net] 
Sent: 29 November 2001 23:13
To: Julian Assange
Cc: Xavier Leroy; John Field; caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License Conditions for OCaml 


In message <20011129230153.55D4D259D2@suburbia.net>,
    Julian Assange writes:

: > For a well-known counterexample, the Perl Kit is distributed either
: > under the terms of the Artistic License or the GPL.
: 
: This is not a counter example. "all of the work, or none of the work".
: 
: 
:                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
    distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These actions are
    prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.  Therefore, by
    modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
    Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
    all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
    the Program or works based on it.

Greg
-------------------
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
-------------------
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