Re: [Caml-list] ocamlbuild on Windows and bash vs. cmd

[Yaron Minsky <yminsky@janestreet.com>]

We have a CLA from all external contributors, so re-licensing under a
more liberal license should be easy, except insofar as we need to do
some due dilligence on whatever new license we pick. Presumably, the
open source lawyer who advised us to pick Apache 2 had some reason for
it, which we need to think about it.

(By the way: see? CLAs aren't all bad...)

We'll look into it.

y

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@recoil.org> wrote:
> The standard MirageOS license for our libraries is ISC, which is short and simple (and the standard license used for new code in OpenBSD):
>
> https://github.com/mirage/mirage/blob/master/LICENSE.md
>
> regards,
> Anil
>
>> On 11 Oct 2016, at 14:00, Ivan Gotovchits <ivg@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Yaron,
>>
>> Given that most of the Janestreet codebase is developed in-house, it might be not that hard to relicense it. This is especially true for `shexp` that currently
>> has only one contributor. I would suggest switching to ISC or MIT (aka X11, aka Expat) licenses. Probably the former should be preferred, as it is shorter and cleaner.
>> The full list of licenses compatible with GPL is here [1].
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ivan
>>
>> [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Yaron Minsky <yminsky@janestreet.com> wrote:
>> You have got to be kidding me.
>>
>> Maybe we can dual license? It would be lovely to avoid the rewrite.
>> What license would be adequate? Maybe we can license everything under
>> LGPLv2+exception and Apache?
>>
>> I hate licenses.
>>
>> y
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Soegtrop, Michael
>> <michael.soegtrop@intel.com> wrote:
>> > Dear Yaron,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> I very much hope the licensing isn't an issue. We purposely picked a very
>> >> liberal license to make this kind of thing as easy as possible. Do tell us
>> >> if you find an issue there.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > it is hard to believe, but the licensing is an issue. According to this
>> > reference from Apache:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > citation:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > “Despite our best efforts, the FSF has never considered the Apache License
>> > to be compatible with GPL version 2, citing the patent termination and
>> > indemnification provisions as restrictions not present in the older GPL
>> > license.”
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > the apache license you use is not compatible with GPL2. Since the OCaml
>> > library is LGPL 2.1, it cannot include Apache licensed code. The patent
>> > issue mentioned above has nothing to do with the difference between GPL and
>> > LGPL, so my guess would be that this also applies to LGPL 2.X.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Please note that the above reference states that Apache is compatible with
>> > GPL 3, but I guess you can write a PhD thesis in law and/or computer science
>> > about the topic if it is better to have GPL 2.x+ or GPL 3+Apache.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > If you think it is worthwhile, I can ask one of our open source lawyers for
>> > advice, but I think the above statement from Apache is fairly clear.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > So as it looks, I have to rewrite from scratch what I need - sigh
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Michael
>> >
>> > Intel Deutschland GmbH
>> > Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
>> > Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
>> > Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Christian Lamprechter
>> > Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
>> > Registered Office: Munich
>> > Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928
>>
>> --
>> Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
>> https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
>> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
>> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>>
>