On Dec 9, 2011, at 11:37 , Jérémie Dimino wrote: > Le vendredi 09 décembre 2011 à 11:11 +0900, Jacques Garrigue a écrit : >> I do agree that the problem with ARM reflect some problem in the current >> development >> organization, but I don't think that you need to fork to solve it. >> *(And note by the way that a real fork could be in contradiction with the >> QPL.)* > > I thought OCaml was a free software...
I'm not a lawyer, but the QPL is not necessarily compatible with free software licenses, as already noted in another thread. > Seriously, i don't understand why a fork would be a bad thing. There are > lots of parts for which one don't need to be superman to contribute. And > right now there are lots of trivial patches on the tracker that remain > without response after several years, so there is clearly a need for > improvement. Right. I would like to place focus on discussing this point, as it seems to be the root of the evil. It would be so easy to fix, IMHO, and you don't need to give up control by the core team. Why not accept a model similar to i.e. the NetBSD project, with a lot of committers (experts in their own areas) and 2-3 people to keep an eye on the overall direction? Benedikt -- Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
