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

​(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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> > - 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