> Hello,
> 
> I would like to ask O'Caml developers why they have chosen QPL license
> for the compiler and GPL for libraries?
> 
> Of course they have a full right to choose a license they want but I
> think that GPL for the compiler and LGPL for the libraries would be a
> much better choice.

Hello,

Some explanations on the license choice for O'Caml can be found on
the web
<http://caml.inria.fr/ocaml/LICENSE.html>
It may answer some of your questions.



> 
> Now it is for example impossible to distribute an O'Caml package as a
> part of some O'Caml GPL project source package. Users have to know that
> this program is written in some unusual programming language and they 
> have to download and compile the O'Campl compiler first. For them it
> would be much better to just download the application sources and type
> /configure; make; make install
> .and build process would compile the ocaml compiler (if it's not already
> present) and then compile application sources and install native
> executable (just like C/C++ apps).

As far as I understand, nothing in a licence prevents easy configuration
and installation (and indeed installing Ocaml from the site
<http://caml.inria.fr/index-eng.html> is what you describe
(configure/make/make install)

As I see it, different packaging organizations have different policies
as regards licenses...
 
> 
> Best regards,
> 	Jozef
> 


-- Luc Maranget