Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: New ocaml licence proposal.
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 05:53:14AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > So this solves most of the issues, and we need to go through the QPL
> > 3b again, but upstream feels it is a reasonable clause, and would
> > like to keep it.
>
> I'm sure that anyone would love to have that kind of term in a
> license. It still feels non-free to me.
Sure, but there is much less consensus about this one, so if a handfull of
people feel it is non-free, i doubt it will come into play.
> > Also the first modification, well, i am not overly confident that it
> > is really needed, and i am sure my wording of it are abysmal, and i
> > ask for some help here in finding some nice and concise wording
> > which doesn't divert to much from the original. The old wording was :
> >
> > a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices
> > in the Software.
> >
> > And i changed it to :
> >
> > a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices
> > in the Software except by adding new authors.
>
> If I'm converting an interactive program to be non-interactive, I
> still can't remove a hard-coded copyright string that pops up in an
> "About" box.
Bah. I doubt this is what was meant here, and i doubt this is going to be a
problem all over.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: