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