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 NAA09434; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:37:39 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA08916 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:37:38 +0100 (MET) Received: from mwinf0901.wanadoo.fr (smtp9.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.22]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2JCc7KW000506 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:38:08 +0100 Received: from lambda (AStrasbourg-206-1-25-146.w81-50.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.50.188.146]) by mwinf0901.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 645B618000F9; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:37:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from luther by lambda with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1B4JG7-0006Fw-00; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:37:55 +0100 Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:37:54 +0100 To: Alex Baretta Cc: Sven Luther , Ocaml Subject: Re: OCaml's Cathedral & Bazaar (was Re: [Caml-list] Completeness of "Unix" run-time library) Message-ID: <20040319123754.GB23502@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> <20040319091334.GB20532@lambda> <405AC57A.1090300@baretta.com> <20040319101741.GA21455@lambda> <405AE4F6.6010801@baretta.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <405AE4F6.6010801@baretta.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i From: Sven Luther X-Miltered: at nez-perce 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 baretta:01 2004:99 baretta:01 qpl:01 lgpl:01 qpl:01 impossibile:99 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 227 On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 01:17:58PM +0100, Alex Baretta wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > >On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 11:03:38AM +0100, Alex Baretta wrote: > > > >Noting is stopping you from doing that, Please read the QPL and LGPL > >before making such uninformed claims. > > > >Friendly, > > > >Sven Luther > > Sven, I am aware of the QPL. Ok, i missed the part about source modifications only being allowed as separate patches. This is ok though. > You do realize that it is an inconvenience to maintain the stock Ocaml > tree and the patch, or tree of patches. It is not impossibile, but it is > an inconvenience. I have a number of patches to the stock ocaml--minor > stuff--which would be easier to maintain if I were allowed to distribute > the modified source as opposed to source-and-patches. Well, the debian package, apart from being a pristine upstream + patch format, also now comes in a form where the debian patch only adds the debian directory, and has a set of patches in debian/patches, conveniently applied and unapplied by dpatch. Very nice. > Since my company is under-staffed at present, I do not have time to > spare for distributing patches. So we just keep our patched core for > internal use and wait until there will be a coordinated effort to which > we can contribute. You could use a revision system, like CVS or more modern subversion or arch, and maintain a pristine upstream branch, and easily generate the patch in question. No difficulties there. > This thread seems to indicate that the only viable proposal for creating > a community project around Ocaml is Gerd's GODI. I'm glad that Xavier > gave Gerd some informal backing. However, managing GODI is going to be > troublesome (not impossibile, just troublesome) until the licensing will > allow GODI to incorporate in its codebase any patches which the GODI > maintainer/team will consider appropriate. Yeah, i know, GODI is nice, but i prefer native support as what we provide for debian, but then, i guess you are using an inferior OS anyway, so ... :)) > I am expressing the need for the community project to make only > additions, but actually modifications to the core project. I have no > trouble with QPL 3.b, which is probably what INRIA cares most about. I > am simply stating that QPL 2 is an unnecessary hassle for everyone. But still free software. I would be more concerned about rights to modify the documentation, but everyone its priority. 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