Re: ocaml license
On Thu, Oct 07, 1999 at 10:57:15AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> Hello, ...
>
> I maintain the ocaml package.
>
> Ocaml is a ML style language, with both a bytecode compiler, a nativ code
> compiler and a virtual machine to run the bytecode.
>
> Now the problem is that ocaml is considered non-free, because its license
> allows only distribution of modified works as source + patch, and no binaries
> (debian package are not considered modification by the upstream autor). This is
> regretable, but the author don't wish to change this, since ocaml is some very
> sensitive technology, at least in the authors eye, since they position themself
> as some kind of java concurent.
Yes. Last time I read, they were worried about someone using their code to
improve the speed of Java or some other language.
>I read somewhere on the FSF site that such
> stuff cannot really adopt a free source approach,
Um, the FSF believes that the free software approach is the only morally
acceptable approach. I can't see them saying that anything can't adopt
a free software approach anywhere.
> Now, there are various other package that are libraries for ocaml, or that are
> programs written in ocaml, but that are under some kind or another of free
> licenses, but since they depend on ocaml, they have to go in contrib.
That is policy.
> I think the situation is the same for native code programs, but the bytecode
> ones depend on the virtual machine to run, which is non free.
>
> So in a situation like this, would a nativ code compiled ocaml program go into
> main ?
Debian proper is a self-contained system. Starting from a Debian system with
only free software, you can completely rebuild and recompile everything on the
system. So no.
> Anyway, to solve all this problems, i thought maybe a free (GPLed)
> implementation of ocaml, that would be bytecode compatible with the the
> non-free implementation, would solve the problem. This way, you could have a
> free virtual machine, and people wanting more performance and other such could
> use the non-free one.
Or the free one could be improved to be the superior of the non-free one. But
yes, that would allow you to run the bytecode on a free system.
> Would a virtual machine be enough, or do i have to
> implement the compiler and other tools also ? What if i want ot write said
> virtual machine and/or compiler in ocaml ? Will i have to wait until the free
> version is able to compile and run itself before it can be considered as free ?
Basically, the problem is as I mentioned above. You would need a compiler in
main (which implies it can be built by tools in main) to put any code in
main. If you were to write them in ocaml, then, yes, you would have to wait
until it could build itself until it (and anything that depenened on ocaml
to build) could be put into main. [assorted ramblings about the evil of
bootstraping compilers snipped]
Personally, I view them as free. But they can't be built and used
on a completely free system. And that's what Debian demands for something
in main.
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Reply to: