On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:00:01AM +0200, J�r�me Marant wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> 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 ? > > I don't understand what it would mean.
It makes use of callbacks in the emacs code base. > >> 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. 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. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
