From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ED94BC8B for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:47:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0V9luIE014467 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:47:56 +0100 Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA25330 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:47:56 +0100 (MET) Received: from smtp.cegetel.net (mf00.sitadelle.com [212.94.174.77]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0V9ltex014464 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:47:55 +0100 Received: from warp (unknown [84.4.78.150]) by smtp.cegetel.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 2165C67796; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:47:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <016a01c50779$e62f1650$ef01a8c0@warp> From: "Nicolas Cannasse" To: "Xavier Leroy" , "Alex Baretta" Cc: "Sven Luther" , "Ocaml" References: <20050128164744.GG13718@osiris.uid0.sk> <20050129.150538.78035843.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> <20050130062235.GC32348@pegasos> <20050131.095711.27629180.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> <41FDD853.5090801@barettadeit.com> <20050131073813.GC19902@pegasos> <41FDE282.7040709@barettadeit.com> <20050131090006.GA18352@yquem.inria.fr> Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml license - why not GPL? Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:47:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 41FDFECC.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 41FDFECB.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; cannasse:01 warplayer:01 caml-list:01 ocaml:01 gpl:01 gpl:01 toplevel:01 ocaml:01 redistribute:01 compiler:01 compiler:01 lexifi:01 redistribute:01 cannasse:01 liberal:98 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: > - If it turns out you have a QPL/GPL incompatibility, you have exactly > three options: > 1) don't use the toplevel library > 2) put your code under another license than the GPL > 3) get a more liberal license for OCaml by becoming a member > of the Caml Consortium. If I understand well, Alex can choose the (3) and get a license that is GPL compatible. But as it has been said before the only licenses compatible with GPL are weaker license, that are "at least" GPL. So a company getting into the Caml Consortium might get rights to redistribute the compiler as GPL ? Are you sure about that ? It looks like actually getting into the Consortium helps with being able to fork privatly the compiler, as Lexifi did, but not to redistribute a GPL version of this fork. I understand INRIA folks are not lawyer, neither I am, but it looks logical. Regards, Nicolas Cannasse