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=0.2 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 0EBF5BBC1 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 21:54:11 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuoAAC8Z+kfOvjGvfGdsb2JhbACRVwEBCwUCBwcWmQU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,618,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="10557035" Received: from web54605.mail.re2.yahoo.com ([206.190.49.175]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with SMTP; 07 Apr 2008 21:54:10 +0200 Received: (qmail 43756 invoked by uid 60001); 7 Apr 2008 19:54:09 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=QXjz+9H+LPE2Rp+mM+t6sgjxP9e3iYlm/LNWCXX4nY+s5dBWMt8oJk/eHbFeMKUP0sLzUu+c+iOupwwno3DFQ3SRZwLXqAzCZRkEhdhDTVoDVOsb8i+u8l8B7zO/V+73qEiOQqZjoST/dJulFw7lmWFiYJdEoH/CkP6I0wn4GQ8=; X-YMail-OSG: Qu.cYJoVM1kEbeVh_mei7.KyIT16A0Mw.u_N29VSlxQQonZTdtX_cGU3vL5JDoSWTy7KX.oP23UF0yzvxgmnWWhYLwkOFr8NJ2PI5bgtxjXOOKQQAzmnzvgJWA2mOg-- Received: from [85.240.112.207] by web54605.mail.re2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:54:09 BST Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 20:54:09 +0100 (BST) From: Dario Teixeira Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License question - QPL vs. SCM To: peng.zang@gmail.com, caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <200804071510.19669.peng.zang@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <733916.43443.qm@web54605.mail.re2.yahoo.com> X-Spam: no; 0.00; patched:01 tarball:01 cheers:01 scm:98 caml-list:01 seems:03 patches:03 patches:03 debian:04 debian:04 upstream:04 upstream:04 qpl:05 qpl:05 probably:07 Hi, > My opinion is probably biased though. I've always thought QPL was a silly > license. The whole idea that you can release source + patches but not the > patched sources seems absurd to me. There is no difference between the two. It's not silly if you intend to make clear what comes from upstream and what has been modified. Debian packages are organised like this: unmodified upstream tarball + Debian patches. In a different domain, the American constitution works the same way: there's the original text + patches (that go by the name "amendments"). Cheers, Dario ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! For Good helps you make a difference http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/