Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 01:36:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 06:14:36PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >>As far as I can tell, there is no consensus on whether "upstream gets an
> >>all-permissive license" is non-free. I personally consider it
> > Again, you didn't seem to read the QPL, or maybe didn't understand it. Where
> > does it say an "all permisive licence" ?
> I was paraphrasing 3b, which grants upstream the right to distribute
> your software in their proprietary product (as long as they also put it
> in the Free version).
And i am no native english speaker, so please explain to me how an "all
permisive licence", which somehow translate to a no restriction licence,
correlates to the "as long as" construct you use above, which as far as my
english understanding is concerned is a restriction or constraint, and thus
contradictory with your first claim.
> I don't think such a requirement is non-free, just obnoxious.
So why are we arguing about it ? Let's go to the real problems.