Re: Accepted ocaml 3.08.0-1 (powerpc all source)
Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> It makes use of callbacks in the emacs code base.
So, no, ocaml doesn't.
>> >> However, I found discrepencies: some .el files are QPL'ed and the
>> >> rest of them GPL.
>> >
>> > One is GPL 1, one is GPL 2, one is QPLed, and the rest are unlicenced, so
>> > would fall under the QPL by default.
>> >
>> > A dual QPL/GPL should make everyone happy, and the ball is in the ocaml team
>> > camp.
>>
>> I've never understood how a dual licensing is usefull and to whom is is.
>> Resolving conflicts means using the same license for all files.
>
> Well, Damien has the intention of having the right to write a non-GPLed emacs
> clone, and use the .el files in those. RMS has the claim that a .el file needs
> to be GPL compatible to be used in emacs, and as he is the emacs upstream
> author, as a matter of courtesy, we decided to give in in this, even thought
> technically there may be stuff to discuss since we distribute the .el in
> source form. Still, as long as Damien hasn't come forward with its emacs
> clone, the intent of providing .el files is clearly to link them with emacs,
> so RMS has a point.
It sounds in contradiction with the link I gave then.
> By dual licencing it under the QPL/GPL, everyone is happy, and everything is
> fine. The only catch is that all contributors have to dual licence their stuff
> too, but i guess that most people won't have a problem with that.
Releasing software under two incompatible licenses still looks strange to
me since you are meant to know how you want you software to be distributed.
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
Reply to: