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 CAA03044; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 02:31:04 +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 CAA03425 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 02:31:03 +0100 (MET) Received: from kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.1]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2J1V0Hd015637 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 02:31:02 +0100 Received: from localhost (suiren.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.25]) by kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (8.9.3p2-20030924/3.7W) with ESMTP id KAA13709; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:30:54 +0900 (JST) To: rich@annexia.org Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: OCaml's Cathedral & Bazaar (was Re: [Caml-list] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library) In-Reply-To: <20040318232039.GA1912@redhat.com> References: <20040318184118.GC702@first.in-berlin.de> <200403182010.i2IKAK1a008157@nerd-xing.mit.edu> <20040318232039.GA1912@redhat.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94.2 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20040319103054F.garrigue@kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:30:54 +0900 From: Jacques Garrigue X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) 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 jacques:01 2004:99 bug:01 bug:01 open-source:01 qpl:01 recognized:99 open-source:01 gpl:01 ocaml's:01 lgpl:01 jacques:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 193 From: Richard Jones > On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 03:10:20PM -0500, John Carr wrote: > > Suppose we find a bug in ocaml that impacts our product. > > Whose job is it to fix the bug? Neither "a network of > > hackers" nor "some academic researchers in France, if they > > have the time" is an acceptable answer. Well, I understand this is hard to explain to companies. Yet I believe that we have a good record for correcting bugs. It is not because we are academic researchers that we don't take seriously our responsibilities. (Microsoft is certainly not faster, and does not offer more guarantees.) > 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. For me, it's not even clear that a public CVS based on ocaml would be a problem: CVS actually works by creating diffs. Could you explain by which mechanism a different license would help in making ocaml's maintenance more reliable for companies? Also note that all this is irrelevant to libraries, which are already released under a slightly relaxed version of the LGPL. Jacques Garrigue ------------------- 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