From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7754BBBA7 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 18:38:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from [128.93.11.95] (estephe.inria.fr [128.93.11.95]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k17HcUBl015502 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Feb 2006 18:38:30 +0100 Message-ID: <43E8DB16.4010102@inria.fr> Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:38:30 +0100 From: Xavier Leroy User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050322) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alessandro Baretta Cc: OCaml Subject: Re: [Caml-list] License question: tricky issue References: <43E852AA.1020805@barettadeit.com> In-Reply-To: <43E852AA.1020805@barettadeit.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 43E8DB16.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 tarball:01 ocaml:01 tarball:01 tarballs:01 non-free:01 peoples:01 lgpl:01 ocaml:01 exceptions:01 debian:02 caml:02 caml:02 patches:02 tricky:02 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 > Would the authors/copyright holders consider a tarball containing an > Ocaml source tarball plus other source code and other source tarballs as > a distribution of their software or as a derived work? The question is > tricky due to the non-free public license adopted by Inria originally. > [...] > Notice that all modifications to other peoples code exist in my > distribution in the form of patch files, which are automatically applied > before the build process begins. Sven's reply is perfectly correct: by distributing the Caml source code unmodified, plus modifications as separate patches, you are 100% in compliance with the letter (and the spirit) of the QPL. (Moreover, the QPL + LGPL + exceptions combo we use for OCaml is free software -- even the Debian legal team agrees with that :-) So, please go ahead with your distributions plans, this is exactly how we intend the Caml source to be used. - Xavier Leroy