On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 08:27:19AM +1000, skaller wrote: > On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 19:59 +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote: > > > The problem with ocamlduce is that it is under QPL licence. And we > > cetainly do not want to package libraries which are distributed > > (exclusively) under this licence. > > Ocamlduce isn't a library, it's a tool -- with the same > licence for its source as Ocaml.
It also provides a library. In fact I had just last week a request from an upstream author to package his software (which he intended to licence under GPL). Unfortunately, he used the ocamlduce library. He says that since he had been basing his project on ocamlduce from the start it would be dificult to switch to something else now. He wasn't aware of this licence problem, just trusting that he could use for his project any libraries that were available in his working environment. That is exactly why I oppose to having this stuff in debian unless they change the licence. The difference with ocaml is that libraries and runtime system are LGPL, hence one can use ocaml for one's project and still release under GPL. -Ralf. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
