From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id KAA22343; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:35:14 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 KAA22554 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:35:13 +0100 (MET) Received: from mel-rto3.wanadoo.fr (smtp-out-3.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.233]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h1O9ZDT05350 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:35:13 +0100 (MET) Received: from mel-rta9.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.69) by mel-rto3.wanadoo.fr (6.7.015) id 3E0C33B50250BC4C; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:35:04 +0100 Received: from iliana (80.11.160.88) by mel-rta9.wanadoo.fr (6.7.015) id 3E26DA8D0159FA83; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:35:04 +0100 Received: from luther by iliana with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18nF0p-0000Rc-00; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:35:03 +0100 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:35:02 +0100 To: Brian Hurt Cc: Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] User library license Message-ID: <20030224093502.GD826@iliana> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i From: Sven Luther Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 01:52:20PM -0600, Brian Hurt wrote: > On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote: > > The best choices would be either the Academic Free > > License or the Mozilla Public License. The Academic > > Free License is modern 'best practice' and was drafted > > by OSI lawyers. The MPL came about through extensive > > user discussions over a long period of time (as did > > wxWindows which is also OSI-approved). > > I thought the MPL had a loophole which allowed the original copyright > owner to use contributed code in a proprietary manner. In other words, > Netscape could use and extend Mozilla for it's browser, including using > other people's code, but no one else could. Correct if I'm wrong. I > haven't looked at the APL yet. Notice, that if we want the stuff to be includable in the standard library some time from now, we should maybe track the individual submissions and see if they agree to it being able to be lincensed under another licence. I think ocaml is also provided under a proprietary licence to the ocaml consortium people, so they would need to be able to do that with the code they integrate also, or they may not be willing to integrate it. This is a point where it would be nice to have feedback from the ocaml team about it, but maybe re-using the LGPL + exception of the ocaml runtime and then adding a further paragraph or such saying that if part of the library is in the future integrated in the ocaml package, it is ok to relicence it, as long as it stays within the ocaml package. It needs clearer wording though. Friendly, Sven Luther ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners