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=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB747BBC1 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2008 17:21:01 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEALp7/EfAXQIn/2dsb2JhbACsdA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,630,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="9393800" Received: from concorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.39]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 09 Apr 2008 17:21:01 +0200 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m39FKxww020921 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2008 17:21:01 +0200 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,630,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="11266554" Received: from estephe.inria.fr (HELO [128.93.11.95]) ([128.93.11.95]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 09 Apr 2008 17:21:01 +0200 Message-ID: <47FCDEDC.7000602@inria.fr> Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:21:00 +0200 From: Xavier Leroy User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060915) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Edgar Friendly Cc: caml list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License question - QPL vs. SCM References: <47F9A346.4060900@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <47F9A346.4060900@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 47FCDEDB.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; inria's:01 wget:01 compiler:01 violate:01 ocaml's:01 ocaml:01 tarballs:01 ocaml:01 scm:98 scm:98 caml-list:01 pairs:01 caml:02 tree:02 tree:02 > 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). The QPL talks only about distribution of derived software. To organize your work and that of your co-developers, everything goes. If you wish to stick to the letter of the QPL, you can always not give public access to your SCM repository, and do your public distribution as a patch against the original Caml sources. Your SCM will very conveniently generate this patch. It's no more work than distributing tarballs. This said, I believe the spirit of the QPL is that anyone can easily see what parts of your derived work are original work and what parts are unchanged from the OCaml sources. In this view, as mentioned earlier in this thread, modified sources + original sources is just as good as original sources + patch. However, a public SCM repository is more than just a set of (original sources, modified sources) pairs. In particular, if your repository contains several versions of the original OCaml sources (because you track our releases), it might not be clear which version of the original sources correspond to which version of your modified sources. So, some changes that we have made may appear like you made them, which isn't quite in the spirit of the QPL. So, you're in a gray area. I don't think anyone will be upset to the point of bothering you about your public repository. I certainly won't. But if I were you I'd just stick to the letter of the QPL, just to have one less thing to worry about. - Xavier Leroy