Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

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 (20:01)
From: Sylvain Le Gall <sylvain@l...>
Subject: Re: License question - QPL vs. SCM
On 07-04-2008, 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").

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...

Sylvain Le Gall