Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 09:41:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@best.com>
To: Markus Mottl <mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at>
Subject: Re: licence issues
In-Reply-To: <199904160854.KAA03929@miss.wu-wien.ac.at>
On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Markus Mottl wrote:
> Hello,
>
> at the moment there is a thread on "comp.lang.functional" discussing
> legal aspects of the OCAML-distribution policy.
>
> Some people believe it is too restrictive and they thus rule it out for
> their purposes. But I think this is mainly due to misunderstandings of
> the licence and/or that the licence is not always explicit enough.
I've heard this question asked too by other "open source" advocates, and
I'd also be interested in the answer. As Markus notes, it would be a
real pity if confusion over the licensing issue precludes greater use of
this outstanding tool.
On a related note, the article http://caml.inria.fr/pub/old_caml_site/ercim.html discusses
the creation of a "Caml Consortium". Is this still happening?
-- Brian
>
> Could someone of the OCAML-team who is in charge of this please clarify
> some points in the thread? It would be a real pity if people ran away /
> didn't look at OCAML due to some unclear licencing issues.
>
> Best regards,
> Markus Mottl
>
> --
> Markus Mottl, mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at, http://miss.wu-wien.ac.at/~mottl
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 02 2000 - 11:58:22 MET