[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2005-01-31 (00:57) |
From: | Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@m...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml license - why not GPL? |
From: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> > > The QPL is an official open-source license. > > Well, it seems that this same fact is highly disputed, and trolltech did in > fact dual licence Qt under the GPL too. The current ocaml licence was modified > from plain QPL though recently, after 2-4 week of intense flamewar on > debian-legal, and there are some clause yet in it which where subject to > discussion. Well, I don't know who disputed this, at least it is an OSI recognized open-source license, which I believe to be the definition of "officially open-source". To the best of my knowledge, Trolltech decided to release a GPL'ed version of Qt because the QPL is not compatible with the GPL, which is no surprise at all: by definition the GPL is only compatible with itself, or strictly weaker licenses, like BSD or LGPL. This is less of a problem with ocaml, because the part covered by the QPL is the compiler, not the library, so this should only concern persons hacking the compiler itself. Jacques Garrigue