On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 04:21:41PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-08-10 15:44:48 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:48:16PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > >>Please, I'd appreciate any news on ocaml moving to CECILL being > >>posted to > >>debian-legal, if you can do that. TIA. > >Read the mailing archive, i think i posted it two times already. [...] > > Please understand that I can't do everything. Tracking -legal already > takes up a lot of my time and I'm not paid for this. You seemed to > hear about this anyway, so it looked cheapest to ask you to continue > telling us. That way, I hope we avoid some "why didn't you warn anyone > about this" and "why didn't you get involved with the discussion if > you care" accusations if relicensing goes badly for debian's users.
Ok, just that i don't have the link handy, and would have to search it in the caml list mail archive (or here). You can probably do this as well as i. > >this is too early to discuss here now, and i will sure keep > >debian-legal > >informed about any such moves. > > Thanks. No problem. > >>>The Compiler is distributed under the terms of the Q Public License > >>>version 1.0 (included below). > >>I don't think this is still "the" QPL after the (permitted) edits, > >>but [...] > >It is the plain QPL, the only change being the choice of law, which > >trolltech > >allowed to change, and now plainly states that the choice of law is > >the french > >one, and nothing more. > > Can it be described as "the Q Public License version 1.0 with a change > to choice of law" instead, please? Ok, will ask, but it seems overkill to me and it is not clear what is gained. Friendly, Sven Luther