On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 11:03:38AM +0100, Alex Baretta wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> 
> >Because the QPL allows for modification to be reused by the ocaml team
> >in other licences, while the GPL doesn't allow for this.
> >
> >Friendly,
> >
> >Sven Luther
> 
> In my opinion it would be sensibile for INRIA to allow redistribution of 
> patched sources, so long as the author of the modifications allows INRIA 
> to include such modifications in its distributions under whichever 
> license INRIA chooses to use.

Alex, ...

I am not entirely sure, but since i distribute the patched ocaml in
debian, and there has been no problem with that, i think there is some
horrible confusion going on here.

The named 'inria copyright' used for caml-light and earlier versions of
ocaml did indeed restrict redistribution in other form than pristine
source and patches. But this has been solved since many years now, and
in particular the introduction of the QPL was part of that change.

This is the main reason for debian not distributing caml-light, which
still use the old problematic licence, as do caml-light derivative like
moscow-ML, but this doesn't apply to Ocaml.

Naturally, if you were meaning something else, please explain.

> I would be more willing to contribute work on a GODI style ocaml 
> distribution if it were easily possible to walk through core Ocaml code 
> and modify if and when this may be needed.

Noting is stopping you from doing that, Please read the QPL and LGPL
before making such uninformed claims.

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