From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1CC8BBAF; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:57:51 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnoBAEjVyUnRVdyuimdsb2JhbACVLj8BAQEKCQwHDwWsMo9lAQMBA4NyBoVx X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,419,1233529200"; d="scan'208";a="23240073" Received: from mail-fx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.220.174]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 25 Mar 2009 14:57:51 +0100 Received: by fxm22 with SMTP id 22so48248fxm.9 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 06:57:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TnS4WqF9G7ck/NzJQzfCLu38ImUO6AqxzMFFfpjRAB0=; b=Z9Eut8bCBDCWKaND8PFwn+OKclNFGrMsXRxsWY4SQD53QlfO3pF8ZPshWwgjfpyIpP pCKlk2ylrqYa3NLb9ubcbZJNasTeyCu2go3/qYnGY46MyP0f7eGfzys8L3p58EY+hNrG agNn3dikNpmQ49ELwjrnQEMyCVDO64RjAmUvI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=Ix/4WJJtKAcTqzJUK2KtUrqIuFF2qsbmYYvVCu1ztGQqxWIuWNoBjNxEMjfP/pJxOv EmQO9XbLaKA3yScHoKaA4Zv+nVZ/IR6wDYR7aePTOJMAsev4+9uOrVX6jCVY09FjmARd DTWi7Jmw+qYzZp2x6ghk8i2uoxM+te3L+sUbc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: david.mentre@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.248.1 with SMTP id a1mr4207455mus.40.1237989471220; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 06:57:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <200903241007.n2OA7TQj025998@deby.inria.fr> <3d13dcfc0903240355i73f7a3a1y1ff214bc2a59590e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:57:51 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0e0fbdf4249734b6 Message-ID: <3d13dcfc0903250657s5212ccf3nce5af5d0953f8f1c@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Caml-list] First release of focalize, a development environment for high integrity programs. From: David MENTRE To: Damien Doligez Cc: caml users Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam: no; 0.00; damien:01 damien:01 iirc:01 avoided:01 2009:98 2009:98 doligez:01 doligez:01 wrote:01 incompatible:01 caml-list:01 caml-list:01 acknowledged:03 contributors:03 debian:04 Hello, On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 10:02, Damien Doligez wrote: > For example, I don't understand why you > would need a detailed review of the code in order to notice that the > licence (which you quoted) is an exact copy of the new BSD licence > (straight from www.opensource.org, IIRC). I already acknowledged that I should have noticed that the license is an exact copy of the new BSD license. However, from past experience, it happens that such software coming from a national or european project with multiple contributors might mix multiple (and even incompatible) licenses for the different part of the code. Thus my question regarding code review. (I'm *not* saying this is the case for Focalize) > Whether you (or the Debian developers, Microsoft management, or > whoever else) choose to call it Free is a matter of political > opinion and debate on this topic is usually a waste of time. I entirely agree (for caml-list@). I'll should have avoided this part of the question. Formal verification tools have such a high cost to learn and use them that I personally won't *consider* them if they not Free Software (according to FSF or Debian). It is hard enough to convince colleagues and management of the usefulness of such tools without being annoyed by restriction of use. Yours, d.