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=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL 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 69E75BBC1 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 22:01:01 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAFsa+kfAXQIm/2dsb2JhbACrGg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,618,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="9305344" Received: from discorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.38]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2008 22:01:01 +0200 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m37K0w6B026232 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 22:01:01 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AngBAB8a+kdQW+UCgWdsb2JhbACRVwEBECaZDA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,618,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="24715682" Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) ([80.91.229.2]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2008 22:00:58 +0200 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JixWP-0002O7-Ae for caml-list@inria.fr; Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:00:53 +0000 Received: from ks300734.kimsufi.com ([91.121.65.225]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:00:53 +0000 Received: from sylvain by ks300734.kimsufi.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:00:53 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: caml-list@inria.fr From: Sylvain Le Gall Subject: Re: License question - QPL vs. SCM Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 20:00:44 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <200804071510.19669.peng.zang@gmail.com> <733916.43443.qm@web54605.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ks300734.kimsufi.com User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1pl2 (Debian) Sender: news X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 47FA7D7A.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; le-gall:01 patched:01 tarball:01 tarball:01 scm:98 scm:98 wrote:01 seems:03 patches:03 patches:03 std:03 debian:04 debian:04 upstream:04 upstream:04 On 07-04-2008, Dario Teixeira wrote: > Hi, > >> My opinion is probably biased though. I've always thought QPL was a silly >> license. The whole idea that you can release source + patches but not the >> patched sources seems absurd to me. There is no difference between the two. > > It's not silly if you intend to make clear what comes from upstream > and what has been modified. Debian packages are organised like this: > unmodified upstream tarball + Debian patches. In a different domain, > the American constitution works the same way: there's the original > text + patches (that go by the name "amendments"). > I think distributing tarball + patches are ok, but a lot of SCM will interleave changes which leads you to have a really borderline situation where delta are not patches... This is a very dangerous interpretation. I won't go this way -- because this thread will finish as a std battle of what is SCM, how delta are stored et al... Regards, Sylvain Le Gall