From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id JAA22527; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:58:21 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA22481 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:58:20 +0100 (MET) Received: from aomori.annexia.org (annexia.force9.co.uk [212.56.101.183]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2J8wnKW008264 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:58:49 +0100 Received: from rich by aomori.annexia.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1B4Fpb-0002Yk-00 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:58:19 +0000 Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:58:19 +0000 Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: OCaml's Cathedral & Bazaar (was Re: [Caml-list] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library) Message-ID: <20040319085819.GB9616@redhat.com> References: <20040318184118.GC702@first.in-berlin.de> <200403182010.i2IKAK1a008157@nerd-xing.mit.edu> <20040318232039.GA1912@redhat.com> <20040319103054F.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040319103054F.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i From: Richard Jones X-Miltered: at nez-perce by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml's:01 caml-list:01 run-time:01 2004:99 0900,:01 jacques:01 open-source:01 qpl:01 recognized:99 open-source:01 gpl:01 gpl:01 patching:01 ltd:98 compiler:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 202 On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 10:30:54AM +0900, Jacques Garrigue wrote: > > This is really why the licensing of the compilers *does* matter. > > Possibly, but may I remind you that ocaml is open-source? > The QPL is a recognized open-source license, even if it isn't GPL > compatible (but almost all open-source licenses are not > GPL-compatible). > Anybody is perfectly free to release fixes and improvements for ocaml, > including binary releases, as long as they provide a patch with > respect to the corresponding version of ocaml. Well, that's sort of free software plus extra problems. I have to go and make a patch against the original and release the patch. If it's OK to release the original + patch, why not just make the compiler GPL, then I and the end users don't have to go through all the extra patching hassle? I'm not convinced either that a CVS repository would be within the license terms. INRIA may not mind, but that's a different issue. Rich. -- Richard Jones. http://www.annexia.org/ http://www.j-london.com/ Merjis Ltd. http://www.merjis.com/ - improving website return on investment Learning Objective CAML for C, C++, Perl and Java programmers: http://www.merjis.com/richj/computers/ocaml/tutorial/ ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners