From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p1FJqV9O024172 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 20:52:31 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhgGAGtoWk2ty1O7/2dsb2JhbACXPo4bc7xJhV4EhQWKMg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,476,1291590000"; d="scan'208";a="99965224" Received: from elehack.net ([173.203.83.187]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 15 Feb 2011 20:52:25 +0100 Received: from [128.101.33.159] (cs-wlc-159.cs.umn.edu [128.101.33.159]) by elehack.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ABA5DC8C67 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:53:03 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <4D5AD976.2080404@elehack.net> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:52:22 -0600 From: Michael Ekstrand User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list@inria.fr X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Caml-list] OCaml standard library license - LGPLv2+? I am working on updating Batteries Included to be more compatible with the standard library changes in OCaml 3.12, and was looking to copy a bit of standard library code (from the Map module) into Batteries to aid with this process. So, prior to doing so, I double-checked licensing to make sure copying looked OK, and discovered a little issue. The OCaml standard library is licensed Version 2 of the LGPL. Batteries, and the code inherited from Extlib, are under Version 2.1 or Later (LGPLv2.1+). Would it be possible to get the OCaml standard library license updated to explicitly allow relicensing under at least 2.1 (which only changed the name from Library GPL to Lesser GPL) and possibly all later versions? In general, it's just a matter of stating that it's licensed under "Version 2 (or, at your option, any later version)", but the link exception might need a bit of work to make sure that it holds up when code is relicensed under version 3. No revision should be necessary if the version is just changed to 2.1. Thanks, - Michael