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

Re: More questions about the QPL for a compiler

>   #index top up prev next
>     _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>   [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
>                                                         More questions about the QPL for a compiler
>     _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>     * To: debian-legal <debian-legal@lists.debian.org>
>     * Subject: More questions about the QPL for a compiler
>     * From: Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>
>     * Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:59:35 -0400
>     * Message-id: <[🔎] 87briabonc.fsf@aule.evenmere.org>
>     * Old-return-path: <bts@alum.mit.edu>
>     * User-agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
>     _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>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.

Sure, again, total lacking of actual research makes your point obsolet.

The runtime part of ocaml is under a LGPL + exception. This is similar of what
gcc does, and was indeed proposed by RMS itself from a similar libgcc clause.

I posted a link about this in a previous post here, but i can give it again :


Choice quote since you can't be bothered to read the links i proposed :

    <from me :>
    1- Users can link with it, statically or dynamically, without any
       restrictions on the final program.

  <RMS's reply :>
  It is easy enough to do that.  That is what we did in the GCC support
  library, libgcc, because it consists mainly of many very simple functions.

>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?

Did you even read DFSG 9 ? IT speaks about agregation of distinct programs on
the same media, about licence of the kind "you can't distribute this software
with software of this or that kind (commercial or other none purely free ones
for example)".

This again proves you don't know what you speak about, and can't even be
bothered to read the points you mention. Your credibility is totally shot
about this, please don't bother participating here without having done your
homework first, like that your participation here is only there to loose
everyones time, and furthermore poses a threat to the credibility of
debian-legal in future such discussions. 


Sven Luther
>Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu
>     _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>   Reply to:
>     * debian-legal@lists.debian.org
>     * Brian Thomas Sniffen (on-list)
>     * Brian Thomas Sniffen (off-list)
>     _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>     * Follow-Ups:
>          + Re: More questions about the QPL for a compiler
>               o From: "Sylvain LE GALL" <sylvain.le-gall@polytechnique.org>
>          + Re: More questions about the QPL for a compiler
>               o From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
>     * Prev by Date: Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
>     * Next by Date: Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
>     * Previous by thread: i was thinking..
>     * Next by thread: Re: More questions about the QPL for a compiler
>     * Index(es):
>          + Date
>          + Thread

Reply to: