On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:47 AM Daniel Bünzli <daniel.buen...@erratique.ch> wrote:
> 3. I'm perfectly fine if opam stays with the LGPL. I'm not however fine > with the added CLA. > I must repeat at this point that, as written in the first mail, the reason why Louis was proposing to use a CLA for OPAM is that the current license is not LGPL. It is a wrongly patched LGPL v3, with an exception coming from LGPL v2, that makes it unusable in the context of OCaml. Without a CLA from major contributors to OPAM, the only option is to move to GPL (LGPL has a clause that allows switching to GPL without agreement from the contributors). Now, on the long term, having a CLA is a good thing for any open-source project, as changing the license might be needed for some unpredicted reason, at some point in the life of a project. For example, a license might become obsolete, because it was tried in a court and failed to protect what it should have. OCaml itself is currently changing its license. Note that OCamlPro's CLA is just a copy of the standard one used by Google and many companies and organizations, that do not transfer copyright, but just allows OCamlPro to change the license. I haven't checked, but it is even maybe the same as Inria's one for OCaml. --Fabrice
_______________________________________________ opam-devel mailing list opam-devel@lists.ocaml.org http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/opam-devel
