Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:13:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> 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