Re: ocaml license
On Thu, Oct 07, 1999 at 10:41:13PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> 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.
Yes, that is it ...
> >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.
But i read, some two years ago, that they said that the only case where the
free approach could cause problems where when the software is leading edge
technology, citing voice recognition and other such as example. I was not able
to find the web page saying this again, so maybe it was from another source,
maybe the opensource guys ?
Also, i can understand them, they are a small research team who are working on
it since some years, and they are afraid that some big company with lots of
money will take their product and take over the developpment, because they have
lot of money and people to throw at it. The authors are also afraid of someone
making a modification of their work, and they getting the bugreports for it. I
know that with propper licensing at least the second point can be resolved, and
maybe something can be done about the first one. I asked on this list about
some advice on this some time ago, but was largely ignored.
Anyway, it is not our place in debian to pass judgement over what license the
upstream author want to use, we can ask him to change, but it is his right to
use any license he likes. That is the reason for my other questions.
> > 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.
Ok, i know that.
> > 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.
Yes, but i have no time for working on this. Also the author told me that in
some future they may release ocaml in a true free license, but they are not yet
ready for it. If i start a true big free ocaml effort, and then upstream
release their code under a free license, i wasted all this time, better used on
some other stuff. Also i thought, maybe the author would release an older or
stripped down version of ocaml under a free licence.
> > 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.
The problem as i see it, is that there is absolutely nothing that stops me from
building ocaml on an entirely free system, its just the redistribution that
cause problem. So what if i include the ocaml source in the free-ocaml package,
and have it built onplace, and then use it to build a native-code free-ocaml
that will run the ocaml programs in a compatible manner to non-free ocaml, or
other such convoluted stuff.
More seriously, if i make a debian package of free-ocaml, that will contain the
upstream ocaml source, and when it is built, will build non-free-ocaml, build
free-ocaml with it, and then only put free-ocaml binaries in the package and
discard the non-free-ocaml one ? This permit me to compile all caml stuff from
main, since there is no reason i cannot put the source of ocaml in main, as
long as i don't distribute the binaries for it. This would be similar of
creating a package that contains the source of a non-free program, but don't
distribute the program, but the source of it.
I am not entirely sure that all this is the most easy way of doing things
though. Was there not some stuff about bootstrapping when no C compiler was
available ? Should we not make some concession for things like this ?
Friendly,
Sven LUTHER
Reply to: