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
