Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

> > - I would very much like to align OPAM and OCaml's licensing, and one is > LGPLv3 and the other is LGPLv2. The latter is commercially more widely > acceptable, and more importantly is set in stone after the recent > consortium meeting. What would the maintainer's feelings of aligning the > OP

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

On 19 Jan 2016, at 14:52, Mark Shinwell wrote: > > For what reason would it be impractical to relicense under a BSD > licence? (I don't really understand your statement in conjunction > with what Thomas writes, for example.) We are unlikely to reach such a consensus on this thread. The only sce

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

For what reason would it be impractical to relicense under a BSD licence? (I don't really understand your statement in conjunction with what Thomas writes, for example.) When you write about the Consortium, I assume you meant that not only the Consortium not only hold the CLA but also include OPA

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

Le mardi, 19 janvier 2016 à 15:17, Fabrice Le Fessant a écrit : > 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 LG

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

On 19 Jan 2016, at 14:17, Fabrice Le Fessant wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:47 AM Daniel Bünzli > 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 i

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:47 AM Daniel Bünzli 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 lice

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

It surely is unsettling to see, or believe to see, one's views distorted, misrepresented, or simply disregarded or chopped off a thread in a way or in another. I made a clear point, even if in a humorous mood, and I'll state it here again: I am a contributor to a project, opam, which is licensed u

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

Le mardi, 19 janvier 2016 à 13:22, Roberto Di Cosmo a écrit : > Being fond of exegesis, though, I'd like to attract your attention to the > fact that my message was criticising an "attitude" (self asserting, > overgeneralising value judgements), while your message is criticising a > "person" (me

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

Daniel, I clearly stated I was going to feed the troll, so this gives a hint to the fact that the text was intended to be read with some humour: if you prefer to read it as inflammatory, so be it, but it was not my intention, and if you feel offended, I do apologize. Being fond of exegesis, thoug

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

Just a small thing to add. It seems to me that the real value of OPAM is as part of the fabric of the OCaml community. It's that community that drives the development of the language---and indeed in some cases provides the means for people to be gainfully employed on projects related to that lang

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

​(adding Mark)​ On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Daniel Bünzli wrote: > > Le mardi, 19 janvier 2016 à 08:56, Roberto Di Cosmo a écrit : > > So, well, first of all, let me totally and deeply disagree on the > cursorily repeated assertions in this thread that imply that GPL is BAD and > BSD is GOO

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

Le mardi, 19 janvier 2016 à 08:56, Roberto Di Cosmo a écrit : > So, well, first of all, let me totally and deeply disagree on the cursorily > repeated assertions in this thread that imply that GPL is BAD and BSD is > GOOD. This kind of generic self asserting statements are ok among kids, not >

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

Oh well, another license/cla/ianal/lawyers-are-evil thread / troll... Being, still today, the 5th opam contributor, according to the git commit debatable metrics I am of course obliged to feed the troll. So, well, first of all, let me totally and deeply disagree on the cursorily repeated assertio

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

Le lundi, 18 janvier 2016 à 20:50, Yaron Minsky a écrit : > Daniel, would you be opposed to a CLA if the code were released under a more > liberal license? For our open source code, Jane Street was advised to use a > CLA, even though we were using a liberal license (Apache, in particular.) I'm >

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

ment be explicitly copied? David > -Original Message- > From: opam-devel [mailto:opam-devel-boun...@lists.ocaml.org] On Behalf Of > Thomas Gazagnaire > Sent: 18 January 2016 19:34 > To: Daniel Bünzli > Cc: Louis Gesbert; opam-devel > Subject: Re: [opam-devel] Opam license

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

Daniel, would you be opposed to a CLA if the code were released under a more liberal license? For our open source code, Jane Street was advised to use a CLA, even though we were using a liberal license (Apache, in particular.) I'm curious if the CLA itself is a problem, or just the CLA in combina

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

Honestly, if we are speaking about re-licensing opam, I am really much in favour of a more liberal license: MIT or BSD is so much simpler than LGPL+CLA, and we don't really need to make the barrier for contributing higher. Being there at the beginning, I understand the initial choice of license:

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

Le lundi, 18 janvier 2016 à 19:09, Louis Gesbert a écrit : > By having a CLA in place, we ensure we have the hands free to avoid any > further such issues: the problem can't arise again. Yes, it does allow us to > re-license the software, or even negociate specific licensing terms with > par

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

By having a CLA in place, we ensure we have the hands free to avoid any further such issues: the problem can't arise again. Yes, it does allow us to re-license the software, or even negociate specific licensing terms with partners, which sounds quite fair to me. Also, this adds to the range of

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

Le lundi, 18 janvier 2016 à 18:01, Louis Gesbert a écrit : > Granted, a CLA is not the only solution to the problem. But it is one. So could you please explain us why you think it is a *good* one ? The only benefits I see here are for OCamlPro's own IP rights. I see however a lot of disadvan

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

Le lundi 18 janvier 2016, 17:42:16 Daniel Bünzli a écrit : > Le lundi, 18 janvier 2016 à 17:29, Louis Gesbert a écrit : > > However, I don't see your point or how it relates to the issue at hand; > > also note that, leaving aside the consideration of LGPL vs BSD, something > > should be done to cla

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

Le lundi, 18 janvier 2016 à 17:29, Louis Gesbert a écrit : > However, I don't see your point or how it relates to the issue at hand; also > note that, leaving aside the consideration of LGPL vs BSD, something should > be > done to clarify the current situation anyway. Well the license has to b

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

Le lundi 18 janvier 2016, 17:17:11 Daniel Bünzli a écrit : > Le lundi, 18 janvier 2016 à 16:02, Louis Gesbert a écrit : > > ² We heard a complaint about it from Daniel Bünzli, and do not believe it > > to be the general feeling. To make your own informed opinion on it, here > > are the related comm

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

Le lundi, 18 janvier 2016 à 16:02, Louis Gesbert a écrit : > ² We heard a complaint about it from Daniel Bünzli, and do not believe it to > be the general feeling. To make your own informed opinion on it, here are the > > related comments and our answers: > > https://github.com/OCamlPro/ocp-in

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

Louis Gesbert wrote: > ## The issue > > Opam is distributed under the terms of the LGPL v3 "with OCaml linking > exception"³, the problem being with the definition of the exception, which > was written against the LGPL v2, and not properly adapted. It patches the > wrong clauses, making it actuall

Re: [opam-devel] Opam license bug

CLA are chores for everyone involved and barriers to contribution. Distribute opam under a liberal license under which you ask your contributors to license their contributions and all your problems will be gone with less lawyers and paperwork involved. Your proposal is a disservice to the proj

[opam-devel] Opam license bug

Dear all, It so happens that the license that was shipped with Opam -- and, accordingly, under the terms of which it was officially distributed, is bogus. More details on the issue below, but the trouble is, a CLA was not put in place at the beginning, nor ever since, and OCamlPro -- although c