[MLton-user] MLton license

[Stephen Weeks]

> Dooh! When the runtime is under GPL this is certainly true.

As is the case with the MLton runtime.  The basis library code is
similar, except that it is included in the executable even more
tightly.  Code that the compiler inserts might even fall in the same
class, I don't know.

> However I already have commercial and non-GPL software released
> which is compiled with MLton and indeed I also had the impression
> that this was OK (as you say seems to be the consensus among the
> MLton folks).

We only recently became aware of this problem.  No worries, we do not
intend to complain about past transgressions.  The real problem is
that we can not absolve you of your sins by ourselves, since we do not
hold the copyright on the original MLton code -- NEC does.  That is
why we are working with them to relicense.

> One solution is to make the runtime LGPL'ed (it stood for Library
> GPL in the old days, but now Lesser GPL) instead of GPL'ed -
> if you want to keep the 100% "free" spirit.

That wouldn't be enough, at least because of the basis library.  In
any case, we do not plan to go that route.

> Regarding the license from the parts of the code from SML/NJ
> that was mentioned earlier

It wasn't the code from SML/NJ that I was referring to.  The license
on that code is no problem.  It is very unrestrictive.  And, as you
mention, it is the "intersection" of the licenses that counts.  What I
was referring to is the NEC copyright on the original MLton code.

> I had many good discussions with Richard Stallman (the "inventor"
> of GPL) in the old days about licencing.
> I don't want to be responsible for not quoting his optinions correctly,
> but for what it's worth: He clearly advocates GPL (and not LGPL).
> However it also seems that he believes that releasing code
> under GPL and having a commercial license for other uses is
> a good way of selling commercial software.
> 
> But you will need some kind of motivation for not just using
> the free GPL'ed version.
> 
> In the case of MLton the obvious motivation is to
> get permission to use the compiled programs without GPL'ing
> the programs.

Right.  That is the direction we are heading with dual licensing.

> On a related note about the Win32 runtimes for GCC:
> 
> Cygwin has a GPL'ed runtime with commercially available licensing
> (or at least it used to have - not sure if things are still like that?)

I believe that they are.

I hope these problems will all be sorted out within a few months, and
there will certainly be an announcement when they are.