Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
Ocaml license - why not GPL?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Sven Luther <sven.luther@w...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml license - why not GPL?
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 03:05:38PM +0900, Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> From: Jozef Kosoru <zyzstar@uid0.sk>
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Actually, this is already LGPL (with an exception to make it even more
> liberal!) for the runtime and the libraries.
> So your only problem with the QPL would be if you need to modify the
> compiler itself, and are not happy with the conditions of the QPL.
> 
> > 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).
> 
> 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.

> There is nothing preventing you to include the compiler in your
> package, as long as you make it clear that the compiler itself is
> copyrighted and under the QPL.

True.

> (One question is whether you need to include all the tools and
> libraries from the distribution, as the QPL seems to imply. I believe
> this can be clarified with the developpers if needed.)
> 
> So I don't really see your problem...

Indeed.

Friendly,

Sven Luther