Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
>>- If it turns out you have a QPL/GPL incompatibility, you have exactly
>>  three options:
>>      1) don't use the toplevel library
>>      2) put your code under another license than the GPL
>>      3) get a more liberal license for OCaml by becoming a member
>>         of the Caml Consortium.
> 
> 
> If I understand well, Alex can choose the (3) and get a license that is GPL
> compatible. But as it has been said before the only licenses compatible with
> GPL are weaker license, that are "at least" GPL. So a company getting into
> the Caml Consortium might get rights to redistribute the compiler as GPL ?
> Are you sure about that ? It looks like actually getting into the Consortium
> helps with being able to fork privatly the compiler, as Lexifi did, but not
> to redistribute a GPL version of this fork. I understand INRIA folks are not
> lawyer, neither I am, but it looks logical.

Indeed, Baretta DE&IT plans to become a member of the Consortium. Since 
all our code is released under strict GPL, except for patches to other 
free software projects which are released under the same terms as the 
orginal code, we would request that INRIA licensed to the code to us 
under strict GPL or under terms allowing us to relicense it under GPL.

Will the caml ... ahem ... /authors/¹ allow me to do this?

Alex


¹ Notice that in compliance to Xavier's request I am renouncing my 
historic dichotomy classyfing developers as "caml riders" or "caml 
breeders". I am thinking very hard to come up with a new one. ;)

-- 
*********************************************************************
http://www.barettadeit.com/
Baretta DE&IT
A division of Baretta SRL

tel. +39 02 370 111 55
fax. +39 02 370 111 54

Our technology:

The Application System/Xcaml (AS/Xcaml)
<http://www.asxcaml.org/>

The FreerP Project
<http://www.freerp.org/>