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 (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).