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.

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