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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31746BBC1 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2008 18:24:38 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAH+K/EfAXQIn/2dsb2JhbACmW4Vy X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,630,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="24808097" Received: from concorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.39]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 09 Apr 2008 18:24:37 +0200 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m39GObei023868 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2008 18:24:37 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AosBAPeK/EdA6aayc2dsb2JhbACRSQEMAwQFCRSUXIVy X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,630,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="9396793" Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.178]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 09 Apr 2008 18:24:36 +0200 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id u52so3903322pyb.10 for ; Wed, 09 Apr 2008 09:24:35 -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:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uo90Z7lEkuif/OR0XeF3ejflAszrd7mI7Vy1BajBXHU=; b=fF8piyj3NzMR6v5tEZL8SY9ie+5brDjMvWPUlkHQsgt1hKG3Nmi1C+MYZKYah1YczOJEe7oClIH57x+DCCx3oNPjhdrAs3/HAPpCSSCe+NJvTZ9sBOYzZ/AP51CAdbkXpDjCom0K3aYLe2jMw19221Zno73/i2ng0eE2cChsVXc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=K/OLX50uTMtZe9D15lDZY8Q3fWC0Zzqz86c5cFNrr39NzXK9xSHHu1LtXhDSbWqniSYVJokwlPbVfds+cIfbgcydf8vfp6Hg9/wFnIpwbFuI/RIzNUi8CI+51yw3rfBOwuc8jNkrjDxLy0wmdJSVk7Abis2vtsRfc7wBdUJ9NEU= Received: by 10.35.28.12 with SMTP id f12mr521981pyj.45.1207758275560; Wed, 09 Apr 2008 09:24:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.0.11? ( [69.155.29.192]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a79sm852368pye.41.2008.04.09.09.24.33 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 09 Apr 2008 09:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <47FCEDC0.7000407@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:24:32 -0500 From: Edgar Friendly User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080227) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Xavier Leroy , caml list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License question - QPL vs. SCM References: <47F9A346.4060900@gmail.com> <47FCDEDC.7000602@inria.fr> In-Reply-To: <47FCDEDC.7000602@inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 47FCEDC5.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; tarballs:01 tarball:01 violate:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 cvs:01 cvs:01 flamewar:01 edgar:98 scm:98 scm:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 pairs:01 caml:02 Xavier Leroy wrote: > The QPL talks only about distribution of derived software. To > organize your work and that of your co-developers, everything goes. > I feel very happy to hear this - I could imagine QPL's "separate" requirement getting enforced even among developers, which would certainly cause pain for development. > 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. > Actually, github has a one-click "download tarball" button, but I've an issue in their tracker to disable it for this project as to not violate your license. > 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. > I don't mind making releases as original sources + patch, especially if this makes you happier. > 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. > A large part of my problem with patches comes to this - there's often not enough information in them to know which version of the original OCaml sources they apply to. My repository will track your CVS, so yes, your changes will appear as patches as well. The commits are still marked with the CVS id of the INRIA user that committed them, so the origin of a patch could be determined, but it'd take a bit of time. > 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 If it pleases you, I'll have a repository for developers (and make it easy to get on the list of developers), and make any official releases as ocaml-source + patch -- QPL-style. I'd rather have the development repository public -- the more hoops to jump through to submit code, the less code submissions. As to the letter of the QPL... we'll stay away from that flamewar. E