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 TAA22070 for caml-redistribution; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 19:49:54 +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 LAA23141 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:28:31 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from maxime.u-strasbg.fr (maxime.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.75.36])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA12677;
	Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:28:27 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from luther@localhost)
	by maxime.u-strasbg.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA21931;
	Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:29:57 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-ID: <19990423112957.B21887@maxime.u-strasbg.fr>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:29:57 +0200
From: Sven LUTHER <luther@maxime.u-strasbg.fr>
To: Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>, Brian Rogoff <bpr@best.com>
Cc: William Chesters <williamc@dai.ed.ac.uk>, OCAML <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: licence issues
Reply-To: luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr
References: <19990420102336.02431@pauillac.inria.fr> <Pine.BSF.4.10.9904211200260.17048-100000@shell5.ba.best.com> <19990421220809.31720@pauillac.inria.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2
In-Reply-To: <19990421220809.31720@pauillac.inria.fr>; from Xavier Leroy on Wed, Apr 21, 1999 at 10:08:09PM +0200
Sender: weis

On Wed, Apr 21, 1999 at 10:08:09PM +0200, Xavier Leroy wrote:
> > 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?

another free ocaml implementation, even if it is not as efficient as the
official on, will help on the following problem for debian.

Right now every program depending on ocaml cannot be in the main part of
debian even if it is free, because it cannot be run and build with only the
main component of debian. If you had a free implementation, this should not be
a problem, since it would be possible to install and compile programs with the
free compiler and VM, but also install the non-free one, if one feels like it.

i understand that this is not possible and would reauest some work on your
part, but maybe a scheme where you guard the current license for most of ocaml,
but release a free version wich would miss the more critical component that you
don't want to loose control over ? or even you could release the native code
compiler, but not the virtual machine, or something like this ?

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER