On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:08:09AM +0200, J�r�me Marant wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:08:21PM +0200, J�r�me Marant wrote: > >> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > It makes use of callbacks in the emacs code base. > >> > >> So, no, ocaml doesn't. > > > > Err, i am under the impression that what is in discussion here are the .el > > files, which are using emacs hooks. Things like : > > > > delete-overlay, with-current-buffer, erase-buffer ... > > > > But then, i have no idea about emacs, and may be wrong. > > It is an API. Emacs interprets .el files that need to use the Emacs > API. > I guess this is the problem here.
Yes. > >> > 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. > > > > This means that you can distribute it to two different set of users, with > > incompatible licence requirement. Nothing new there, ocaml already does this. > > They use the QPL for us, and another licence to the Ocaml consortium folk. > > So, dual licensing means that some files are released under A, and the rest of > them under license B. This is how OCaml work. > What needs to be done is making A and B compatible. No it means that the same file can be had either under licence A or licence B. You chose which licence you want to follow, and must abide by its rights and restrictions. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
