[opam-devel] Opam license bug
thomas at gazagnaire.org
Mon Jan 18 19:34:21 GMT 2016
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: at the time, the scope of what was being building was not totally clear, opam was the first large independent software project developed by OCamlPro the company was very young and some kind of protection were needed. Nowadays, I think opam is in a very different different situation: it became the default package manager for OCaml.
So I'd rather look at the next steps at how we can now make opam more widespread. For instance, lower the contribution barrier: simpler and more re-usable code, more documentation, simpler licensing scheme (BSD is the new norm); and make it fully OCaml independent: in the source code but also in the manual, and on its own website (generated from GH pages, with manual + roadmap). Lastly, we need all which was discussed on the roadmap for 1.3, including windows support :-)
> 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
>> partners, which sounds quite fair to me. Also, this adds to the range of
>> theoretical possibilities, but we currently have no plans to monetize Opam.
> So let's be honest about it. From the community point of view there are very little incentives to this solution. License changes are rare.
>> I am curious and would be glad to hear more about it: I intuitively don't see
>> much difference between submitting a contribution BSD-licensed or under the
>> terms of the CLA, from the company's point of view. Am I wrong ?
> Opam is LGPL'ed, contributing under the terms of the CLA allows OCamlPro to do whatever it wishes with opam and the contributions. But you as a contributor are not allowed to do whatever you wish since you are bound by LGPL terms. If Opam was under a more liberal license, everyone could do whatever it wishes with the code and we'd no even need to have a discussion about a CLA.
> Also from a broader perspective, companies may have rules that say you are allowed to contribute to projects that have these specific kind of licenses. Having other legalities under the form of CLAs surrounding contribution may be a no go because the legal setting is non standard or would need to much legal investigations.
> opam-devel mailing list
> opam-devel at lists.ocaml.org
More information about the opam-devel