Greetings, I've noticed an older discussion about the QPL
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00626.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00519.html which argues that clause 6 gives additional permissions (like clause 3b and 3c of the GPL), with clauses 3 and 4 of the QPL being the DFSG-free path. In that case, clause 6 is irrelevant. I brought this up in June http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00049.html regarding libcwd. At the time, I didn't see any dissents, and I haven't seen anyone else bring up that angle. If you look at the ocaml licensing page http://caml.inria.fr/ocaml/LICENSE.html you could argue that the ocaml authors agree with this interpretation. So, first of all, does anyone dissent now? If not, I think as long as the ocaml authors agree with that interpretation, clause 6 is not a problem. However, the choice of venue is still a problem. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
