On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:59:35PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > My understanding of the Ocaml compiler is that it emits part of itself > into its output. Not all of itself, not even most of itself, but a > noticeable and copyrightable part. I know this is the case for most > compilers, and see no reason it wouldn't be for Ocaml as well. > > Now I look again at QPL 6: > > > You may develop application programs, reusable components and other > > software items that link with the original or modified versions of > > the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the > > following requirements... > > And I wonder about executables compiled by the QPL'd Ocaml compilers. > Are they application programs that link with versions of the Software? > It sure sounds like it. I doubt INRIA intended the license to be read > that way. But saying, "this is free because they didn't really mean > what they wrote," doesn't seem a good route. > > Under this interpretation, does this fail DFSG 9? Or is it no worse > than the case of Emacs, where .elc files must be distributed under the > terms of the GPL? >
Hello, Ocaml, as far as i know, is splitted in two differents sets of object files : - one set represents the compiler, this means the internal guts of the compiler, typing system et al - another set represents the standards library, stubs system ( foreign call ), VM et al The first set ( compiler ) is under QPL, the second set is under LGPL with Ocaml exception. This means, you can produce binary using LGPL ( with Ocaml exception ) only licenced ocaml objects... Regard Sylvain Le Gall
