On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 01:17:58PM +0100, Alex Baretta wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 11:03:38AM +0100, Alex Baretta wrote:
> >
> >Noting is stopping you from doing that, Please read the QPL and LGPL
> >before making such uninformed claims.
> >
> >Friendly,
> >
> >Sven Luther
> 
> Sven, I am aware of the QPL.

Ok, i missed the part about source modifications only being allowed as
separate patches. This is ok though.

> You do realize that it is an inconvenience to maintain the stock Ocaml 
> tree and the patch, or tree of patches. It is not impossibile, but it is 
> an inconvenience. I have a number of patches to the stock ocaml--minor 
> stuff--which would be easier to maintain if I were allowed to distribute 
> the modified source as opposed to source-and-patches.

Well, the debian package, apart from being a pristine upstream +
patch format, also now comes in a form where the debian patch only adds
the debian directory, and has a set of patches in debian/patches,
conveniently applied and unapplied by dpatch. Very nice.

> Since my company is under-staffed at present, I do not have time to 
> spare for distributing patches. So we just keep our patched core for 
> internal use and wait until there will be a coordinated effort to which 
> we can contribute.

You could use a revision system, like CVS or more modern subversion or
arch, and maintain a pristine upstream branch, and easily generate the
patch in question. No difficulties there.

> This thread seems to indicate that the only viable proposal for creating 
> a community project around Ocaml is Gerd's GODI. I'm glad that Xavier 
> gave Gerd some informal backing. However, managing GODI is going to be 
> troublesome (not impossibile, just troublesome) until the licensing will 
> allow GODI to incorporate in its codebase any patches which the GODI 
> maintainer/team will consider appropriate.

Yeah, i know, GODI is nice, but i prefer native support as what we
provide for debian, but then, i guess you are using an inferior OS
anyway, so ... :))

> I am expressing the need for the community project to make only 
> additions, but actually modifications to the core project. I have no 
> trouble with QPL 3.b, which is probably what INRIA cares most about. I 
> am simply stating that QPL 2 is an unnecessary hassle for everyone.

But still free software. I would be more concerned about rights to
modify the documentation, but everyone its priority.

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