Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:55:26PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > This is where I disagree.  Requiring modifiers to license changes as
> > free for everyone to make proprietary is not free.  I don't know of
> > any other licenses in main that have that requirement.
> 
> OpenSSL, perhaps.  It has a BSDish license followed by:
> 
>  * The licence and distribution terms for any publically available version or
>  * derivative of this code cannot be changed.  i.e. this code cannot simply be
>  * copied and put under another distribution licence
>  * [including the GNU Public Licence.]
> 
> Since the license permits binary-only distribution, you have to allow
> this for derived works you publish as well.

Well, then we're already breaking the license.  OpenSSL is covered by
two different licenses with two different advertising clauses.

Rather, I take that statement as a clarification, not as an additional
term.  The SSLeay author just had a bad understanding of the law, and
is prohibiting something that you can't do anyway.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu