[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:16:42AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Dual-licensing under the GPL and QPL appeared to be good enough for
> > Trolltech, so presumably the same reasoning that they used when
> > making that decision will be persuasive to other users of the QPL.
> The licensing of the software in question, oCaml, turns out to be
> sligtly more complex than apparent from Barak's initial post. It
> consists of a compiler and a runtime module (bytecode interpreter +
> libraries). The compiler is under QPL. The runtime module is under
> LGPL plus an explicit permission to link non-LGPL things to it. I
> haven't yet figured out how this permission goes beyond what the LGPL
> itself says.
> Given that the component covered by the QPL is just the compiler, it
> seems that there is no reason why QPL 6 is even relevant for that
> particular piece of sofware.

Have you communicated with the oCaml folks before?  Do you think they
would be amenable to dual-licensing the compiler under the QPL and GPL?

Trolltech AS found this strategy reasonable for Qt because the GPL
didn't grant any permissions they weren't comfortable granting -- the
issue for them was that the GPL *didn't* grant some permissions they
*wanted* to grant, so they wrote their own license (the QPL).

The oCaml folks might share these desires, in which case dual-licensing
should be fairly uncontroversial.

G. Branden Robinson                |      When dogma enters the brain, all
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      intellectual activity ceases.
branden@debian.org                 |      -- Robert Anton Wilson
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgp3xps4DyA4n.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: