Re: [Caml-list] User library license

["Nicolas Cannasse" <warplayer@free.fr>]

> > > > The new "user code library" is a good idea, but GPL
> > > > and LGPL are both bad ideas.
> > >
> > > The best idea is to use the same licence the ocaml runtime currently
> > > uses :
> > >
> > > The Library is distributed under the terms of the GNU Library General
> > > Public License version 2 (found in /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2
> > > on debian systems).
> >
> > And what about a "do anything you want with it, including compiling,
> > modifiying, inserting bugs" license ?
> > I mean, this kind of collaborative work shouldn't even be (c)
> > (although it's fair to maintain a list of contributors somewhere in the
> > distribution)
>
> The problem with that is that anyone can take your work, modify it, and
> don't give anything back, look at apple for example, they took the BSD
> kernel, and don't give anything back. I think licencing is the main
> reason they choose a BSD krernel over a linux one back then. I suppose
> some people (including me) would not be willing to contribute code under
> these circunstances, so i don't think it would be best for the project,
> since the aim is to put in common the code.

Uhm, perhaps I'm not paranoid enough, but whe're just talking about an
extension to the Standard OCaml Library...
The goal here is to provide to every caml developper all the data structures
he will ever want to use - and corresponding algorithms. Who is going to
steal it ? and for what purpose ?

If tomorrow Apple steal it and start developping serious software in OCaml,
I think it would be a good thing for the whole community since you'll be
able to tell your boss that "ocaml is great : Apple is using it" , or to the
guy who's hiring you " i'm writing such good code that Apple itself can't
help stealing it " :)

As a programmer, I'm proud to licence software that I'm developping, but
this is gonna be a big common melt in the first times, I keep my pride away
and give my code for the sake of the community.

> Also, the main argument, is that it gains you nothing more, since you
> have to link with the ocaml runtime anyway, which is licenced as LGPL +
> exception.

You gain a clear license for users not familiar with the LGPL :  I think
that the "GPL" part in "LGPL" can sometimes be mistaken by frilous users.

Nicolas Cannasse

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners