On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:07:21 -0400 Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Francesco, I think you're misinterpreting Sven's intent with the "more > permissive" license. The idea is not that you or I would ever see > such a thing; rather, INRIA sells licenses to Ocaml. You pay them > $10k or so, and you get a permissive license. If you don't pay, you > get the QPL.
Yes, this would be possible in Sven's hypothesis, I know.
And I knew, when I replied.
Actually, my reply to Sven's hypothesis was my first sentence:
| IMHO, it would not improve the modified-QPL freeness.
The rest was simply *another* hypothesis, the dual-licensing one:
| It however would really improve the ocaml freeness, if ocaml itself
| were dual-licensed under a 2-clause BSD license [...]
Did I clarify?
--
| GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | $ fortune
Francesco | Key fingerprint = | Q: What is purple
Poli | C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | and commutes?
| 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | A: A boolean grape.
pgpwNas8eruND.pgp
Description: PGP signature
