copyright of byte code containing the run time system

copyright of byte code containing the run time system

[Ralf Treinen]

Please forgive me if this has already has been discussed. I am confused
by the new LGPL/Q license of ocaml. The ocaml source distribution 
details the copyright of the different source files, however, I have some
doubts about the implications for the compiled tools. Here is my
problem:

I'm building a binary distribution of a program which is itself GPL
licensed. There are three different ways to build an "executable":

1.) compiled to native code
2.) compiled to byte code, packaged without the runtime system
    (in this case, the user would have to install an ocaml package
     which comes with it own license).
3.) compiled to byte code and with the runtime system (compiled with -custom)

I understand that in cases (1) and (2) the OCaml license does not impose
any new constraints on the copyright. In case (3), I plan to add the
following text to the existing (GPL) license of the software:

	The executable code contains a copy of the OCaml runtime system 
	which is licensed under the terms of the Gnu Library General
	Public License. [followed by a reference to the LGPL text].

I would appreciate if someone from INRIA could confirm my interpretation,
or correct me. Answers will be forwarded to the debian-ocaml-devel
mailing list.

Ralf.

Re: copyright of byte code containing the run time system

[Xavier Leroy]

> Please forgive me if this has already has been discussed. I am confused
> by the new LGPL/Q license of ocaml. The ocaml source distribution 
> details the copyright of the different source files, however, I have some
> doubts about the implications for the compiled tools. Here is my
> problem:
> 
> I'm building a binary distribution of a program which is itself GPL
> licensed. There are three different ways to build an "executable":
> 
> 1.) compiled to native code
> 2.) compiled to byte code, packaged without the runtime system
>     (in this case, the user would have to install an ocaml package
>      which comes with it own license).
> 3.) compiled to byte code and with the runtime system (compiled with -custom)

Our intent is that you should be able to link with the OCaml libraries
and runtime system, and distribute the resulting executable without
any restrictions.  We chose the LGPL for these part of the systems
precisely to allow this.

Now, there is some fine print in the LGPL that makes a subtle
distinction between static linking and dynamic linking, which we did
not understand at first (and we now find this distinction silly and useless).

But even with the most pessimistic reading of the LGPL, there cannot
be any problems if your main program is itself under a free license
such as the GPL or LGPL.

> I understand that in cases (1) and (2) the OCaml license does not impose
> any new constraints on the copyright. In case (3), I plan to add the
> following text to the existing (GPL) license of the software:
> 
> 	The executable code contains a copy of the OCaml runtime system 
> 	which is licensed under the terms of the Gnu Library General
> 	Public License. [followed by a reference to the LGPL text].

This is more than the LGPL requires.  Feel free to add or not to add
this paragraph to the license of your software.

Best regards,

- Xavier Leroy

Re: copyright of byte code containing the run time system

[Sven LUTHER]

On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 11:28:14AM +0200, Xavier Leroy wrote:
> > Please forgive me if this has already has been discussed. I am confused
> > by the new LGPL/Q license of ocaml. The ocaml source distribution 
> > details the copyright of the different source files, however, I have some
> > doubts about the implications for the compiled tools. Here is my
> > problem:
> > 
> > I'm building a binary distribution of a program which is itself GPL
> > licensed. There are three different ways to build an "executable":
> > 
> > 1.) compiled to native code
> > 2.) compiled to byte code, packaged without the runtime system
> >     (in this case, the user would have to install an ocaml package
> >      which comes with it own license).
> > 3.) compiled to byte code and with the runtime system (compiled with -custom)
> 
> Our intent is that you should be able to link with the OCaml libraries
> and runtime system, and distribute the resulting executable without
> any restrictions.  We chose the LGPL for these part of the systems
> precisely to allow this.
> 
> Now, there is some fine print in the LGPL that makes a subtle
> distinction between static linking and dynamic linking, which we did
> not understand at first (and we now find this distinction silly and useless).

Xavier, ...

why not clarify further this further and simply state in your licence that the
runtime is under the LGPL, with the added permission to distribute statically
linked code. I don't have it under my eyes right now, but i think you
understand the idea.

> But even with the most pessimistic reading of the LGPL, there cannot
> be any problems if your main program is itself under a free license
> such as the GPL or LGPL.

Anyway, the only problem that could arise would be if INRIA (or whoever hold
the copyright for the runtime) decide to begin suing people about it. I don't
think this will happen.

Also, what about the toplevel ?

I guess a program built with ocamlmktop would be under the QPL, since it
contains not only the runtime, but also some part of the compiler needed for
parsing ocaml sentences ?

But then i may be wron, didn't look at the files involved.

Friendly,

Sven LUTHER