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
License question - QPL vs. SCM
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Dario Teixeira <darioteixeira@y...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License question - QPL vs. SCM

> My opinion is probably biased though.  I've always thought QPL was a silly 
> license.  The whole idea that you can release source + patches but not the 
> patched sources seems absurd to me.  There is no difference between the two. 

It's not silly if you intend to make clear what comes from upstream
and what has been modified.  Debian packages are organised like this:
unmodified upstream tarball + Debian patches.  In a different domain,
the American constitution works the same way: there's the original
text + patches (that go by the name "amendments").


Yahoo! For Good helps you make a difference