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: