From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D597BBC1 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 06:30:04 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEACZA+UfAXQIm/2dsb2JhbAClSYQA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,615,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="10518113" Received: from discorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.38]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2008 06:30:04 +0200 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m374U3os023085 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 06:30:04 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Al8CACZA+UdA6aa3c2dsb2JhbACRVQEMAwQFCRSTPoQA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,615,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="9268204" Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.183]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2008 06:30:03 +0200 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id u52so1980308pyb.10 for ; Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:30:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xvQ87pUtU1b3nyP01GGW7urZoocusvql0AirHl+1p6E=; b=qQVtxvdDiUZyIltcPBq4mgm8Ha3DGi2uPXGflQ+00V7b98hE8pbOlFscVkHJ9LBRpVaKuAt67p0pn2//vhrQKpM6sLej4fAhlmXZoo1hrHHjZR4wYjQIgtWPtPds59xYpxB75BxYpawYVEzHz0thP9wNKpbjiEV6bAfFLj5Ekg4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=dVG2QpHOgYbeR22SgyL2lcPhB2sh2MSTosfXxRukg+3EwodHxmnEtdwOhWyoEtYlKFSWHjaaQJzWpAKNOLz6Li/AmE8unHkB/cXrIoljtmVlH/1gNThhDGwnC6+4IpgkgHg3GXqWaNyZPFVB+MiSeZJZoaG8MZmjhW5BqHV9K+U= Received: by 10.35.101.1 with SMTP id d1mr7893630pym.39.1207542602180; Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:30:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.0.11? ( [69.154.217.121]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a22sm9603914pye.33.2008.04.06.21.30.00 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:30:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <47F9A346.4060900@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 23:29:58 -0500 From: Edgar Friendly User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080227) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml list Subject: License question - QPL vs. SCM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 47F9A34B.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 compiler:01 inria's:01 wget:01 compiler:01 violate:01 ocaml's:01 ocaml:01 edgar:98 scm:98 scm:98 edgar:98 caml:02 tree:02 tree:02 The core OCaml compiler has a QPL license[1] (for everyone but consortium members). This license allows distribution as follows: 2. You may copy and distribute the Software in unmodified form provided that the entire package, including - but not restricted to - copyright, trademark notices and disclaimers, as released by the initial developer of the Software, is distributed. 3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches. ... My question for INRIA's lawyers (or anyone else in some official capacity to answer) involves using a Source Code Manager (SCM) whose distribution method has structure: source + patch1 + patch2 + .... The SCM would do the lifting of combining the two into the final tree, just as a script could easily wget an original source file and a list of patches and combine them into the final tree. Would using such a SCM to organize and distribute compiler source violate OCaml's license? Would using such a SCM make the Gods of OCaml angry? :) I don't intend to slip through a legal crack, I just want to work efficiently, and trying to manage patches without such a system seems like madness, like Linux kernel development before BitKeeper (I imagine). Edgar [1] http://caml.inria.fr/ocaml/license.en.html