English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
[Caml-list] User library license
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2003-02-24 (17:59)
From: Blair Zajac <blair@o...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] User library license
Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:45:34AM +0900, Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
> > > > > Regarding license ... I suppose LGPL could be fine.
> > > >
> > > > The new "user code library" is a good idea, but GPL
> > > > and LGPL are both bad ideas.
> > >
> > > The best idea is to use the same licence the ocaml runtime currently
> > > uses :
> > >
> > > The Library is distributed under the terms of the GNU Library General
> > > Public License version 2 (found in /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2
> > > on debian systems).
> >
> > And what about a "do anything you want with it, including compiling,
> > modifiying, inserting bugs" license ?
> > I mean, this kind of collaborative work shouldn't even be (c)
> > (although it's fair to maintain a list of contributors somewhere in the
> > distribution)
> The problem with that is that anyone can take your work, modify it, and
> don't give anything back, look at apple for example, they took the BSD
> kernel, and don't give anything back.

I see a difference between a kernel which definitely can be made proprietary
from language or core library extensions, which I see are just tools to
make proprietary code.

> I think licencing is the main
> reason they choose a BSD kernel over a linux one back then. I suppose
> some people (including me) would not be willing to contribute code under
> these circunstances, so i don't think it would be best for the project,
> since the aim is to put in common the code.

I wouldn't have an issue with this.  I see getting improving the core language
to be more important than license issues.  After all, these libraries are

I would use the C++ Boost library as an example of people contributing to
a high quality library.  Parts of the Boost library may be accepted by the
C++ standards body for future standardization.  I would guess that many
people would be proud to get their code into such a library

Here are the submission guidelines for Boost



     The license must meet the license requirements below. Restricted licenses
     like the GPL and LGPL are not acceptable. 

Here are their license requirements

    Must be simple to read and understand. 

    Must grant permission to copy, use and modify the software for any use
    (commercial and non-commercial) for no fee. 

    Must require that the license appear on all copies of the software source

    Must not require that the license appear with executables or other binary
    uses of the library. 

    Must not require that the source code be available for execution or other
    binary uses of the library. 

    May restrict the use of the name and description of the library to the
    standard version found on the Boost web site. 

I would have no problems contributing to a library with these license
requirements, and suggest using Boost as a library to module Ocaml
libraries after.


Blair Zajac <blair@orcaware.com>
Plots of your system's performance - http://www.orcaware.com/orca/
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/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners