Caml Light license in 2010

Caml Light license in 2010

[Jeremy Bem]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1223 bytes --]

Hello,

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.

Suggestions?  I see that Moscow ML is a fork of Caml Light, however they
forked the 0.61 version (1993) which didn't yet have the QPL-style clause
prohibiting the direct distribution of modified sources.

My ideas:
- I could also fork the 0.61 version (I actually tried to compile it,
encountered some minor issues but I'm sure they could be worked around)
- I could perhaps join the Caml Consortium, but 3000 Euro seems like a lot
for this -- especially at this stage.
- Is there still an active desire to restrict use of Caml Light 0.7x in this
way?  And would the 0.61 workaround be going against the spirit of things,
if not the letter?
- Is there a better jumping-off point for my project?  My own feeling is
that this code has probably aged rather well (although i have no wish to
spend time re-fixing the pre-1998 bugs).

Thanks in advance for any help,
Jeremy

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1405 bytes --]

Re: Caml Light license in 2010

[Michael Ekstrand]

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

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Caml Light license in 2010

[Stéphane Glondu]

Le 14/07/2010 01:23, Michael Ekstrand a écrit :
> [...]  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.

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.caml.general/42200

-- 
Stéphane