Browse thread
License question - QPL vs. SCM
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Edgar Friendly <thelema314@g...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Re: License question - QPL vs. SCM |
Sylvain Le Gall wrote: > I think distributing tarball + patches are ok, but a lot of SCM will > interleave changes which leads you to have a really borderline situation > where delta are not patches... This is a very dangerous interpretation. > I won't go this way -- because this thread will finish as a std battle > of what is SCM, how delta are stored et al... > > Regards, > Sylvain Le Gall > As noted in the annotated QPL [1], Any technique is acceptable for keeping changes separate - generally, you would have to mark changes very clearly for them to be separate. We don't want to hard-code the idea that the form must be patches. methods other than patches can satisfy the separate requirement. This seems to defuse the issue of delta != patch, at least in my mind. E [1] http://troll.no/products/qt/licenses/licensing/qpl-annotated