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: | 2008-04-07 (04:30) |
From: | Edgar Friendly <thelema314@g...> |
Subject: | License question - QPL vs. SCM |
The core OCaml compiler has a QPL license[1] (for everyone but consortium members). This license allows distribution as follows: 2. You may copy and distribute the Software in unmodified form provided that the entire package, including - but not restricted to - copyright, trademark notices and disclaimers, as released by the initial developer of the Software, is distributed. 3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches. ... My question for INRIA's lawyers (or anyone else in some official capacity to answer) involves using a Source Code Manager (SCM) whose distribution method has structure: source + patch1 + patch2 + .... The SCM would do the lifting of combining the two into the final tree, just as a script could easily wget an original source file and a list of patches and combine them into the final tree. Would using such a SCM to organize and distribute compiler source violate OCaml's license? Would using such a SCM make the Gods of OCaml angry? :) I don't intend to slip through a legal crack, I just want to work efficiently, and trying to manage patches without such a system seems like madness, like Linux kernel development before BitKeeper (I imagine). Edgar [1] http://caml.inria.fr/ocaml/license.en.html