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

Re: QPL clause 6 irrelevant?



On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:14:29PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> regarding libcwd.  At the time, I didn't see any dissents, and I
> haven't seen anyone else bring up that angle.  If you look at the
> ocaml licensing page
> 
>   http://caml.inria.fr/ocaml/LICENSE.html
> 
> you could argue that the ocaml authors agree with this interpretation.
> So, first of all, does anyone dissent now?  If not, I think as long as
> the ocaml authors agree with that interpretation, clause 6 is not a
> problem.

It is, because it is explicit in that page that portions of the software
*are* covered by clause 6.

"The one exception is custom top-level interactive systems built with
ocamlmktop: those are composed of user code linked with a library containing
large parts of the OCaml bytecode compiler. Those custom top-levels must
comply with the requirements of paragraph 6, but that's pretty easy to do:
just distribute them under an Open Source license."

Oddly, though, the OCaml authors don't mention the requirements of 6c, which
are what we've had trouble with.  I wonder if that "just" is disclaiming the
ability of the initial developer to compel distribution of other works.

> However, the choice of venue is still a problem.

And 3b, IMO.  I find that a larger *practical* problem than 6c.

- Matt



Reply to: