From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id KAA24680; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:13:19 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA24374 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:13:18 +0100 (MET) Received: from mwinf1002.wanadoo.fr (ipoutme5.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.21]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2J9DHHd001240 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:13:17 +0100 Received: from lambda (AStrasbourg-206-1-23-200.w81-49.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.49.251.200]) by mwinf1002.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id E11341C00052; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:13:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from luther by lambda with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1B4G4M-0005M9-00; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:13:34 +0100 Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:13:34 +0100 To: Richard Jones Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: OCaml's Cathedral & Bazaar (was Re: [Caml-list] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library) Message-ID: <20040319091334.GB20532@lambda> References: <20040318184118.GC702@first.in-berlin.de> <200403182010.i2IKAK1a008157@nerd-xing.mit.edu> <20040318232039.GA1912@redhat.com> <20040319103054F.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> <20040319085819.GB9616@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040319085819.GB9616@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i From: Sven Luther X-Miltered: at concorde by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml's:01 caml-list:01 run-time:01 sven:01 luther:01 sven:01 luther:01 2004:99 2004:99 0900,:01 jacques:01 open-source:01 qpl:01 recognized:99 open-source:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 204 On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 08:58:19AM +0000, Richard Jones wrote: > On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 10:30:54AM +0900, Jacques Garrigue wrote: > > > This is really why the licensing of the compilers *does* matter. > > > > Possibly, but may I remind you that ocaml is open-source? > > The QPL is a recognized open-source license, even if it isn't GPL > > compatible (but almost all open-source licenses are not > > GPL-compatible). > > Anybody is perfectly free to release fixes and improvements for ocaml, > > including binary releases, as long as they provide a patch with > > respect to the corresponding version of ocaml. > > Well, that's sort of free software plus extra problems. I have to go > and make a patch against the original and release the patch. > > If it's OK to release the original + patch, why not just make the > compiler GPL, then I and the end users don't have to go through all > the extra patching hassle? Because the QPL allows for modification to be reused by the ocaml team in other licences, while the GPL doesn't allow for this. Friendly, Sven Luther ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners