Browse thread
[Caml-list] Caml-get 0.1
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2004-01-21 (15:22) |
From: | Sven Luther <sven.luther@w...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Caml-get 0.1 |
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:54:52PM +0100, Maxence Guesdon wrote: > > > That's what I was thinking about: the mandatory license tag could > > > take an url and the license would be retrieved from that url when > > > the caml-get archive is retrieved. If a license could not be > > > retrieved (because of a wrong url for example), the element would > > > not be available in the client repository. > > > > Notice that many licences mandate that either the full licence or a > > reduced version is available together with the source you distribute. > > Would it be ok it the license was put in the client repository and printed > with the code when the (for example) -l option is given ? (By default > the complete license information would not be printed with the code, only > the url where to find it.) This way the license is available but not > always added to your file when you want to use an element of the repository > in your code. Imagine a guy who ocaml-get's a given bit of code on his laptops, and then wants to work on it in a plane or somewhere else offline ? He will then have no access ot the licence, which is not ok. (But then, i have not looked at your work in detail, and may have missed something). The best would be to have, for each bit of source you can ocaml-get, a link to a licence file, which may be common to many ocaml-gettable sources, and which get downloaded only if it has not already, maybe with a md5sum check to make sure it is indeed the same licence. Then, you can just have the licence tag or whatever refer to a file on the client harddisk, and there will be no problem. BTW, how does ocaml-get integrate (or not) with the debian packaging effort ? Will it be possible to use it to install non-packaged stuff in a debian policy friendly way or something like that ? Friendly, Sven Luther ------------------- 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