Re: Accepted ocaml 3.08.0-1 (powerpc all source)
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
>
> > It makes use of callbacks in the emacs code base.
>
> So, no, ocaml doesn't.
Err, i am under the impression that what is in discussion here are the .el
files, which are using emacs hooks. Things like :
delete-overlay, with-current-buffer, erase-buffer ...
But then, i have no idea about emacs, and may be wrong.
> >> >> 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.
Sure, but it is strengthening our position in the rest of the QPL issue, so ...
> > 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.
This means that you can distribute it to two different set of users, with
incompatible licence requirement. Nothing new there, ocaml already does this.
They use the QPL for us, and another licence to the Ocaml consortium folk.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: