From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id KAA13080 for caml-redistribution; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 10:03:18 +0200 (MET DST) 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 SAA21003 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 18:41:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from shell5.ba.best.com (shell5.ba.best.com [206.184.139.136]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA12909 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 18:41:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (bpr@localhost) by shell5.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.sh) with ESMTP id JAA08898; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 09:41:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 09:41:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Rogoff To: Markus Mottl cc: OCAML Subject: Re: licence issues In-Reply-To: <199904160854.KAA03929@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: weis On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Markus Mottl wrote: > Hello, > > at the moment there is a thread on "comp.lang.functional" discussing > legal aspects of the OCAML-distribution policy. > > Some people believe it is too restrictive and they thus rule it out for > their purposes. But I think this is mainly due to misunderstandings of > the licence and/or that the licence is not always explicit enough. I've heard this question asked too by other "open source" advocates, and I'd also be interested in the answer. As Markus notes, it would be a real pity if confusion over the licensing issue precludes greater use of this outstanding tool. On a related note, the article http://caml.inria.fr/ercim.html discusses the creation of a "Caml Consortium". Is this still happening? -- Brian > > Could someone of the OCAML-team who is in charge of this please clarify > some points in the thread? It would be a real pity if people ran away / > didn't look at OCAML due to some unclear licencing issues. > > Best regards, > Markus Mottl > > -- > Markus Mottl, mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at, http://miss.wu-wien.ac.at/~mottl > >