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 (19:11)
From: Peng Zang <peng.zang@g...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License question - QPL vs. SCM
Hash: SHA1

I have no legal experience, I am not a lawyer etc ...

But this sounds okay.  You're never actually distributing the changed form.  
You are simply distributing the patches and software to automate the patching 

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.  
All the necessary bits are there.  It's like saying you can release the 
source code in ASCII format but not UTF-8.


On Monday 07 April 2008 12:29:58 am Edgar Friendly wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)