From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id RAA31666 for caml-redistribution; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 17:25:48 +0200 (MET DST) 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 KAA04667 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:55:00 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from miss.wu-wien.ac.at (miss.wu-wien.ac.at [137.208.107.17]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA03259 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:54:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from mottl@localhost) by miss.wu-wien.ac.at (8.9.0/8.9.0) id KAA03929 for caml-list@inria.fr; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:54:53 +0200 (MET DST) From: Markus Mottl Message-Id: <199904160854.KAA03929@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> Subject: licence issues To: caml-list@inria.fr (OCAML) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:54:53 +0100 (MET DST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: weis 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. 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