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 TAA10797; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:46:31 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 TAA10861 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:46:30 +0100 (MET) Received: from marble.he.net (marble.he.net [216.218.230.2]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h1OIkSH18584 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:46:29 +0100 (MET) Received: from ucdavis.edu ([208.227.214.58] (may be forged)) by marble.he.net (8.8.6/8.8.2) with ESMTP id KAA18442 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:46:25 -0800 Message-ID: <3E5A69E9.4010306@ucdavis.edu> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:52:25 -0800 From: Issac Trotts User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020913 Debian/1.1-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OCaml List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] User library license References: <20030223170018.GA1456@iliana> <00d501c2dba6$6c2085c0$1c13f9ca@Warp2> <20030224092404.GB826@iliana> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Sven Luther wrote: >On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:45:34AM +0900, Nicolas Cannasse wrote: > > >>>>>Regarding license ... I suppose LGPL could be fine. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>The new "user code library" is a good idea, but GPL >>>>and LGPL are both bad ideas. >>>> >>>> >>>The best idea is to use the same licence the ocaml runtime currently >>>uses : >>> >>>The Library is distributed under the terms of the GNU Library General >>>Public License version 2 (found in /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-2 >>>on debian systems). >>> >>> >>And what about a "do anything you want with it, including compiling, >>modifiying, inserting bugs" license ? >>I mean, this kind of collaborative work shouldn't even be (c) >>(although it's fair to maintain a list of contributors somewhere in the >>distribution) >> >> > >The problem with that is that anyone can take your work, modify it, and >don't give anything back, look at apple for example, they took the BSD >kernel, and don't give anything back. I think licencing is the main >reason they choose a BSD kernel over a linux one back then. I suppose >some people (including me) would not be willing to contribute code under >these circunstances, so i don't think it would be best for the project, >since the aim is to put in common the code. > It would be more accurate to say that they "copied" the BSD kernel. "Taking" usually means that the one who had it no longer has it. Why should it matter if they use information so long as they don't take away other people's freedom to use it? Issac Trotts ------------------- 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