Re: More questions about the QPL for a compiler
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:59:35PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> My understanding of the Ocaml compiler is that it emits part of itself
> into its output. Not all of itself, not even most of itself, but a
> noticeable and copyrightable part. I know this is the case for most
> compilers, and see no reason it wouldn't be for Ocaml as well.
>
> Now I look again at QPL 6:
>
> > You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
> > software items that link with the original or modified versions of
> > the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the
> > following requirements...
>
> And I wonder about executables compiled by the QPL'd Ocaml compilers.
> Are they application programs that link with versions of the Software?
> It sure sounds like it. I doubt INRIA intended the license to be read
> that way. But saying, "this is free because they didn't really mean
> what they wrote," doesn't seem a good route.
>
> Under this interpretation, does this fail DFSG 9? Or is it no worse
> than the case of Emacs, where .elc files must be distributed under the
> terms of the GPL?
>
Hello,
Ocaml, as far as i know, is splitted in two differents sets of object
files :
- one set represents the compiler, this means the internal guts of the
compiler, typing system et al
- another set represents the standards library, stubs system ( foreign
call ), VM et al
The first set ( compiler ) is under QPL, the second set is under LGPL
with Ocaml exception. This means, you can produce binary using LGPL (
with Ocaml exception ) only licenced ocaml objects...
Regard
Sylvain Le Gall
Reply to: