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 SAA00266 for caml-redistribution; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 18:54:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA28062 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:08:15 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA13956; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:08:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from xleroy@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id WAA32646; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:08:09 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <19990421220809.31720@pauillac.inria.fr> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:08:09 +0200 From: Xavier Leroy To: Brian Rogoff Cc: William Chesters , OCAML Subject: Re: licence issues References: <19990420102336.02431@pauillac.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1 In-Reply-To: ; from Brian Rogoff on Wed, Apr 21, 1999 at 12:16:07PM -0700 Sender: weis > Since we are inventing hypothetical scenarios, try this one: INRIA stops > funding the Caml project, for whatever reason. OCaml users are left > "orphaned", as it is not clear who takes over, and begin the switch to > SML and Haskell, or, much worse, C++, Perl, and Visual basic ;-). As a > former Amiga and NextStep user, fear of being orphaned is a concern. I was expecting this scenario to come up at some point in the discussion. In the (presently unlikely) event that INRIA would pull the plug out of the Caml project, we would of course do everything possible so that the sources are released under a very liberal licence so that others can continue the development if they wish. You're right that this kind of code release hasn't been done often in the past, especially by corporations, but it is becoming much more commonplace now (see e.g. the MLJ project at Persimmon, or the cancelled Java JIT project at Netscape). It is also very much in the spirit of public research. > I think the trick is to find a way to satisfy the valid concerns of the > OCaml developers and the trepidations of some users. Agreed. Some participants in this discussion have made interesting contributions in this direction, and I thank them. > Perhaps if there were > another version of OCaml (like the Bigloo based Caml Light) under the GPL > or a similar license these concerns would be lessened. I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you suggesting some form of code split? How would this solve the issue? Best regards, - Xavier Leroy