On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:52:52AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > the ultimate conclusion is that the QPL is not free, any time you've > > spent trying to delay examination of this license can only hurt ocaml's > > chances of remaining in the archive. > Well, did i try to delay examination ? I posted with my doubts about the first > summary conclusion, and was ignored. This hardly seams like a delaying tactic > on my part. It is my impression that your comments are intended to discourage this discussion from taking place before sarge's release. > I also contacted upstream, let's see what he will say to it, i doubt it will > be positive though. I hope it may be; but if not, I hope we can at least have a productive discussion with upstream about these concerns over the license -- more productive than this in-house discussion seems to have been so far. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature