Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
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: Peng Zang <peng.zang@g...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License question - QPL vs. SCM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Yeah, Edgar was also just pointing out that (source + patches) allows one to 
easily recover the source whereas patched sources do not.

(source + patches) is more equivalent to (patched sources + original sources).

In any event, I'm not saying such a format is bad for releasing code.  I 
simply think it is a tad silly for a distribution license to specify, so 
precisely, the format the code is to be released in.  Releasing the code as 
(patched sources + original sources) for example, seems just as reasonable... 
but it is unclear if that is allowed.

Peng

On Monday 07 April 2008 03:54:09 pm Dario Teixeira wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > 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").
>
> Cheers,
> Dario
>
>
>
>       ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! For Good helps you make a difference
>
> http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH+oDCfIRcEFL/JewRAsbcAKCgqx+EF/JpMdvNzW1sghZIub0ePwCdHzqM
kxiDCWjzWEgglJY/WZYH0N8=
=jamC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----