> Would the authors/copyright holders consider a tarball containing an
> Ocaml source tarball plus other source code and other source tarballs as
> a distribution of their software or as a derived work? The question is
> tricky due to the non-free public license adopted by Inria originally.
> [...]
> Notice that all modifications to other peoples code exist in my
> distribution in the form of patch files, which are automatically applied
> before the build process begins.

Sven's reply is perfectly correct: by distributing the Caml source
code unmodified, plus modifications as separate patches, you are 100%
in compliance with the letter (and the spirit) of the QPL.

(Moreover, the QPL + LGPL + exceptions combo we use for OCaml is free
software -- even the Debian legal team agrees with that :-)

So, please go ahead with your distributions plans, this is exactly how
we intend the Caml source to be used.

- Xavier Leroy