English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

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

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: 2008-04-07 (20:09)
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.


[1] http://troll.no/products/qt/licenses/licensing/qpl-annotated