Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
Matthew Garrett <email@example.com> writes:
> Matthew Palmer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:33:21PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> Matthew Palmer <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> To be honest, I'd expect that the given example wouldn't be a problem -
>>> aren't license terms that would compel illegal behaviour generally held
>>Probably, but you're still working against the author's wishes in that
>>circumstance. I'd rather a licence that didn't try and compel me to break
>>the law in the first place.
> If the author wishes us to break the law, then I don't think we have any
> obligation to follow the author's wishes.
Yes, but we can follow both the author's wishes and the law by not
distributing such software.
Brian Sniffen firstname.lastname@example.org