RE: [Caml-list] ocaml compiler license

[David Allsopp <dra-news@metastack.com>]

Roberto Di Cosmo wrote:
> David, you are right: one cannot "change" the terms of a licence used on a
> piece of code after releasing this piece of code under this licence.
> But we are talking about "interpretation" of these terms, which is quite a
> different story.

Yes, but the copyright holder does not get to dictate the interpretation.

> If you look at FSF/OSI/<whatever other external entity including me> to
> know whether a git branch is fine as an implementation of "separate", you
> only get an opinion... maybe a well respected opinion, but just an opinion
> that may become the subject of debate later on. And avoiding debate is a
> desirable thing.

Absolutely - and hence why it's sensible to ask!

> If Inria says publicly (e.g. on this mailing list): "for us it's fine to
> see OCaml derivatives developed and published as separate git branches",
> then you get the work owner's explicit statement that this practice is
> acceptable for the only entity entitled to enforce the licence.  And
> that's the end of the story: simple, clear, undebatable, no hassle.

Yes, I agree - sorry, I made my point unclearly. The point I was making is that if Inria were to say "no, we don't accept that as satisfying the licence" then that is just their opinion. You can still do it, you just know that you're likely to end up in court testing the licence if you do. The arbiter in a difference of opinion on interpretation is the legal system, not the copyright holder.


David