Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It makes use of callbacks in the emacs code base.
So, no, ocaml doesn't. >> >> 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. > 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. -- J�r�me Marant http://marant.org
