Re: [Caml-list] about OcamIL

[ben kuin <benkuin@gmail.com>]

> 1. [...] it would still require some time to rewrite a few parts.

Release early, release often. Maybe you put it under your name on
sourceforge, if you are afraid to put potentially non-buildable code
under the flags of lexifi.

> 2. Similarly, we rely on our "extended standard library" (a collection of
> general purpose modules).

That sounds interesting!

> Again, it would take some time to extract the few
> needed function to make a standalone distribution.

Release early, release o...

> 3. [...] At some point, we planned to sell a version of CSML as
> an extra module to this platform

If this is about biz vs. oss, then it could be a solution to go the
path of PyQT:
- offer of a GPL version
- sell a version that can be used commercially




On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Alain Frisch <alain.frisch@lexifi.com> wrote:
> On 05/05/2010 11:46 PM, ben kuin wrote:
>>
>> thats interesting indeed, is there a particular reason you wont
>> release the csml compiler sources and provide only the binaries?
>
> Yes, there are several reasons:
>
> 1. The code uses some local extensions to the OCaml compiler that are not
> available in the INRIA version; this is less true today because some of our
> extensions have been integrated upstream, but it would still require some
> time to rewrite a few parts.
>
> 2. Similarly, we rely on our "extended standard library" (a collection of
> general purpose modules). Again, it would take some time to extract the few
> needed function to make a standalone distribution.
>
> 3. We sell a development platform for financial applications, which includes
> our modified version of OCaml and advanced libraries for the manipulation of
> financial concepts. At some point, we planned to sell a version of CSML as
> an extra module to this platform (the public version of CSML does not
> support some extra features). It hasn't been formally decided yet, but we
> might change our plans regarding this issue.
>
>
> We did not get any feedback from the community regarding this tool, so we
> haven't felt any motivation to address point 1 and 2 above, or to reconsider
> our position in point 3.  If you plan to use CSML, let us know about your
> projects, and we might find some arrangement (either a custom license with
> source code at no charge for you, or a real open-source license).
>
> Regards,
>
> Alain Frisch
>
>
>