Re: [Caml-list] Ocaml license - why not GPL?

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 05:47:44PM +0100, Jozef Kosoru wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I would like to ask O'Caml developers why they have chosen QPL license
> for the compiler and GPL for libraries?
> 
> Of course they have a full right to choose a license they want but I
> think that GPL for the compiler and LGPL for the libraries would be a
> much better choice.
> 
> Now it is for example impossible to distribute an O'Caml package as a
> part of some O'Caml GPL project source package. Users have to know that
> this program is written in some unusual programming language and they 
> have to download and compile the O'Campl compiler first. For them it
> would be much better to just download the application sources and type
> /configure; make; make install
> .and build process would compile the ocaml compiler (if it's not already
> present) and then compile application sources and install native
> executable (just like C/C++ apps).

Jozef, 

With the current licence, which is not strictly the QPL anymore, please read
it, it is perfectly acceptable to distribute ocaml into debian/main, so i
doubt there is any additional restriction you may have for whatever obscure
need you may have.

The only real problem is if you want to link your stuff with the ocaml
compiler pseudo-QPLed code. But mere agregation, even if it is Makefile
enabled, do not cause the GPL/QPL incompatibility to come to life, only true
linking.

And anyway, real OSes have ocaml packages :)

Friendly,

Sven Luther