Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Sven Luther <sven.luther@w...>
Subject: Re: OCaml's Cathedral & Bazaar (was Re: [Caml-list] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library)
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 08:58:19AM +0000, Richard Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 10:30:54AM +0900, Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> > > This is really why the licensing of the compilers *does* matter.
> > 
> > Possibly, but may I remind you that ocaml is open-source?
> > The QPL is a recognized open-source license, even if it isn't GPL
> > compatible (but almost all open-source licenses are not
> > GPL-compatible).
> > Anybody is perfectly free to release fixes and improvements for ocaml,
> > including binary releases, as long as they provide a patch with
> > respect to the corresponding version of ocaml.
> Well, that's sort of free software plus extra problems.  I have to go
> and make a patch against the original and release the patch.
> If it's OK to release the original + patch, why not just make the
> compiler GPL, then I and the end users don't have to go through all
> the extra patching hassle?

Because the QPL allows for modification to be reused by the ocaml team
in other licences, while the GPL doesn't allow for this.


Sven Luther

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: