On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 11:38:08PM +0200, J�r�me Marant wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 09:43:43AM +0200, J�r�me Marant wrote: > >> Quoting Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > >> > ocaml (3.08.0-1) unstable; urgency=low > >> > . > >> > * New upstream release. > >> > * Do not install the emacs files, until upstream gives a response about > >> > the > >> > licencing issue. (Closes: #227159, #227163) > >> ^^^^^^^^^^ > >> You shouldn't have listened to those debian-legal morons: we could have > >> lived with it as we used to. What about people who were using this > >> mode and seeing it suddenly vanish? > >> > >> I think those people are wrong because: > >> > >> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL > > > > Notice that i think the claim was that emacs provided bindings for the ocaml > > mode to use, and thus is considered as a linked work, as per paragraph two of > > the link you quoted above. > > I don't understand how it applies to those emacs files. There is nothing > such a JNI-like binding in thsi ocaml mode. > Emacs calls the ocaml toplevel and that's all.
And the ocaml stuff doesn't use a single of the emacs hooks ? > 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. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
