Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 04:21:41PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-08-10 15:44:48 +0100 Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:48:16PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>Please, I'd appreciate any news on ocaml moving to CECILL being
> >>posted to
> >>debian-legal, if you can do that. TIA.
> >Read the mailing archive, i think i posted it two times already. [...]
> Please understand that I can't do everything. Tracking -legal already
> takes up a lot of my time and I'm not paid for this. You seemed to
> hear about this anyway, so it looked cheapest to ask you to continue
> telling us. That way, I hope we avoid some "why didn't you warn anyone
> about this" and "why didn't you get involved with the discussion if
> you care" accusations if relicensing goes badly for debian's users.
Ok, just that i don't have the link handy, and would have to search it in the
caml list mail archive (or here). You can probably do this as well as i.
> >this is too early to discuss here now, and i will sure keep
> >informed about any such moves.
> >>>The Compiler is distributed under the terms of the Q Public License
> >>>version 1.0 (included below).
> >>I don't think this is still "the" QPL after the (permitted) edits,
> >>but [...]
> >It is the plain QPL, the only change being the choice of law, which
> >allowed to change, and now plainly states that the choice of law is
> >the french
> >one, and nothing more.
> Can it be described as "the Q Public License version 1.0 with a change
> to choice of law" instead, please?
Ok, will ask, but it seems overkill to me and it is not clear what is gained.