Sven Luther wrote:

>>Anyhow, I'd urge people pause before 'contributing code'
>>because that isn't important. The key thing is to create
>>a policy document that clearly states the project goals,
>>and to apply the policy strictly.
>>
> 
> But the discusion could now be ported to a separate mailing list on the
> new sourceforge project, could it not ? The licence flamewar also i
> guess.


I have 3 sourceforge projects, and I think that while it

is clumbsy at doing some things it does have a lot of support
and reasonable management tools. I can't speak for savannah.
Sourceforge downside: FTP is not supported BAHHHH HUMBUG don't these
people know that HTTP is unreliable? :-) Also the release mechanism
is exceedingly clumbsy, and they don't allow computations on the
main shell accounts -- last I looked the computation farm required
manually moving stuff around.

On licence: given the goal to extend/round out the standard
ocaml library, I think our feelings on the licence are fairly moot.
We should simply use the same licence as the library we're extending.

ON worthy subgoal would be to *eliminate* the other licences:
I believe the Str module is archaic and has 'other licence'
and we might try to eliminate it -- the Ocaml team itself is
working on that isn't it?

[Sigh: my FSA code already replaces Ocamllex, but it's FFAU:
more work is needed, but if other contributions were LGPL
I wouldn't be able to use them unless I rethought my licence policy]

-- 
John Max Skaller, mailto:skaller@ozemail.com.au
snail:10/1 Toxteth Rd, Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia.
voice:61-2-9660-0850


-------------------
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