Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990420102452.009b5ec0@mailhost.ed.harlequin.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:24:52 +0100
To: Pierre Weis <Pierre.Weis@inria.fr>, bpr@best.com (Brian Rogoff)
From: Dave Berry <daveb@harlequin.co.uk>
Subject: Re: licence issues
In-Reply-To: <199904191753.TAA26061@pauillac.inria.fr>
At 19:53 19/04/99 +0200, Pierre Weis wrote:
>You are right, but you know, nowadays, it's a kind of a religious war:
>you must have been baptized under the GPL to be declared a ``free''
>man (sorry, I meant software).
I find the most useful definition is not "free software", but "Open Source
software". This has a broader definition than just GNU. If you look at
http://www.opensource.org/osd.html, you'll see both the accepted definition
of "Open Source", and links to several example licenses. This is the
definition used by Linux distributors, which gives some practical incentive
to adopt an Open Source licence.
It is, of course, up to you whether you want to make O'Caml "Open Source",
in this sense.
(My apologies if you already know this).
Dave.
Languages Group Manager.
Harlequin Ltd., Lismore House, 127 George St, Edinburgh, EH2 4JN, UK.
Tel: +44 131 240 6106.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 02 2000 - 11:58:22 MET