On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:13:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> > Notice that nowhere in the QPL does it say that the original author can > >> > compell the patch from you, he can only get it freely from either you if > >> > you > >> > publicly distribute it, or from one of the chain of people you > >> > distribute it > >> > too. > >> > >> You mean other than QPL 6, right? > > > > Well, QPL6c was removed, right ? And QPL clause 6 and QPL clause 3 and 4 > > apply > > to different cases of software, as we previously discussed. > > QPL 6c ws not removed. It's overridden for the specific case of > Ocaml, but that doesn't help the other QPL-licensed software in > Debian. I don't think there's much, but it's all important to somebody.
Then don't speak about it in the new ocaml licence thread. > >> BSD license, C has freedom with respect to the code and could freely > >> contribute it to Debian. > >> > >> If we got the Caml code that way, that would be great. > > > > Indeed, but this is not going to happen. I also would 100x prefer a GPLed > > ocaml over a BSSDish one though. > > It's hard to call the GPL a more free license than the QPL -- even if > the QPL is called non-free for the sake of argument. They provide > different freedoms under different conditions. Licenses are only a > partially ordered set. Indeed. i was just expressing my personal preference. Friendly, Sven Luther
