🚀 go-pugleaf

mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at writes:

>I have asked people at INRIA through the mailing list to explain the
>intention of this licence. Xavier Leroy was so kind to shed some light
>upon this [...]:
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  What the INRIA license states (not very clearly, I agree), is that
>  public distribution of modified versions is allowed in the form of
>  source diffs only.  Other forms of distribution (in particular as
>  precompiled binaries) require prior authorization from INRIA.
>
>  The intent of this clause is to prevent "unfair" reuse of OCaml code
>  in projects that could be harmful to the whole OCaml effort. e.g. in
>  competitors' projects.

Hmmm, do you think the maintainers of GNU Emacs ever considered XEmacs to
be a competing project?  Do you think the maintainers of GNU Emacs were
happy about that development split?  And do you think we ever would have
gotten a user-friendly menu-driven GUI version of Emacs without it?

Do you think the maintainers of GNU C ever considered EGCS to be a competing
project?  Do you think they were happy with that development split?
And do you think we would have a decent free C++ compiler now without it?

I don't know the answers to these questions. 
But I can make some good guesses.

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3        |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.