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 mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77A3EBBAF for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 02:23:19 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmgDANafPExQW+UMgWdsb2JhbACfZRUBARYiIsAOhScEiE0 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,198,1278280800"; d="scan'208";a="66428265" Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 14 Jul 2010 02:23:19 +0200 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OYpkp-0003x8-J3 for caml-list@inria.fr; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 02:23:15 +0200 Received: from bas3-toronto02-1279464129.dsl.bell.ca ([76.67.18.193]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 02:23:15 +0200 Received: from michael by bas3-toronto02-1279464129.dsl.bell.ca with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 02:23:15 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: caml-list@inria.fr From: Michael Ekstrand Subject: Re: Caml Light license in 2010 Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 20:23:05 -0400 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: bas3-toronto02-1279464129.dsl.bell.ca User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100527 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.5 In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 X-Spam: no; 0.00; versioned:01 wrote:01 awkward:02 caml:02 caml:02 functional:02 codebase:96 patches:03 patches:03 programming:03 repository:03 repository:03 applied:05 problem:05 qpl:05 On 07/13/2010 09:18 AM, Jeremy Bem wrote: > I'd like to use the Caml Light codebase as a jumping-off point for a new > (language-level) functional programming project.. Also, I like to use > public hosting (Google Code) for my projects. The problem however is > the QPL license which means I need to maintain patchfiles rather than > actual sources. This is awkward for version control and such. Depending on what version control system you use, it might not be too bad. If you use e.g. Mercurial with either mq (which gives nasty history) or the pbranch extension, development might not be too painful. pbranch is an alternative way of building patches by using Mercurial branches to maintain them, leading to much cleaner history than a versioned repository of patches. It does allow a checkout of the modified source, though, so depending on how you make the repository available that could be a technical violation of the license (although the original state and applied changes will be clearly evident in the revision log). I seem to remember a discussion about whether or not a VCS is sufficient distinction to meet the requirements of the QPL, but do not remember its outcome. - Michael