English version
Accueil     Ŕ propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis ŕ jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml ŕ l'adresse ocaml.org.

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: 2004-03-19 (08:58)
From: Richard Jones <rich@a...>
Subject: Re: OCaml's Cathedral & Bazaar (was Re: [Caml-list] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library)
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?

I'm not convinced either that a CVS repository would be within the
license terms.  INRIA may not mind, but that's a different issue.


Richard Jones. http://www.annexia.org/ http://www.j-london.com/
Merjis Ltd. http://www.merjis.com/ - improving website return on investment
Learning Objective CAML for C, C++, Perl and Java programmers:

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