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
Caml Light license in 2010
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2010-07-14 (00:23)
From: Michael Ekstrand <michael@e...>
Subject: Re: Caml Light license in 2010
On 07/13/2010 09:18 AM, Jeremy Bem wrote:
> I'd like to use the Caml Light codebase as a jumping-off point for a new
> (language-level) functional programming project..  Also, I like to use
> public hosting (Google Code) for my projects.  The problem however is
> the QPL license which means I need to maintain patchfiles rather than
> actual sources.  This is awkward for version control and such.

Depending on what version control system you use, it might not be too
bad.  If you use e.g. Mercurial with either mq (which gives nasty
history) or the pbranch extension, development might not be too painful.
 pbranch is an alternative way of building patches by using Mercurial
branches to maintain them, leading to much cleaner history than a
versioned repository of patches.  It does allow a checkout of the
modified source, though, so depending on how you make the repository
available that could be a technical violation of the license (although
the original state and applied changes will be clearly evident in the
revision log).  I seem to remember a discussion about whether or not a
VCS is sufficient distinction to meet the requirements of the QPL, but
do not remember its outcome.

- Michael