On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 01:44:32AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > [Or even consider the restrictions on QPL+Artistic license. The new > > QPL requires patches, and forbids non-source releases, while Artistic > > requires renaming or severely restricted distribution -- so eventually > > you wind up with a build process with files you shouldn't rename and an > > executable which must be renamed.]
On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 11:17:11PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote: > The QPL does not require patches. It prefers them, but doesn't require > them. You could just as easily provide the original for reference and > let someone else diff it (which is at least a major improvement over > requiring that only patches be made..) Ok, thanks, I wasn't up on that. But basically what this means, you're obligated to distribute all prior versions -- perhaps as a CVS archive, perhaps as something less efficient. [If you're the author you can collapse versions, but not if you're building on someone else's work.] Not that I particularly care.. -- Raul