Le lundi 18 janvier 2016, 17:42:16 Daniel Bünzli a écrit : > Le lundi, 18 janvier 2016 à 17:29, Louis Gesbert a écrit : > > However, I don't see your point or how it relates to the issue at hand; > > also note that, leaving aside the consideration of LGPL vs BSD, something > > should be done to clarify the current situation anyway. > > Well the license has to be clarified; fine: let's ask all contributors to be > able to relicense it under the correct license. > > However there's *absolutely no need* to introduce a CLA to do this. Sorry > but this looks disingenuous again, you are conflating two very distincts > problems into a single one. > > Best, > > Daniel
Granted, a CLA is not the only solution to the problem. But it is one. I expected it wouldn't be to your taste, but I don't think this reflects the general opinion -- I am waiting to hear more feedback on this. So this is still the solution we would like to propose at the moment. Best, Louis _______________________________________________ opam-devel mailing list opam-devel@lists.ocaml.org http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/opam-devel
