Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:30:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >>Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes: >>>On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:13:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >>>>Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes: >>>> >>>>>>BSD license, C has freedom with respect to the code and could freely >>>>>>contribute it to Debian. >>>>>> >>>>>>If we got the Caml code that way, that would be great. >>>>> >>>>>Indeed, but this is not going to happen. I also would 100x prefer a GPLed >>>>>ocaml over a BSSDish one though. >>>> >>>>It's hard to call the GPL a more free license than the QPL -- even if >>>>the QPL is called non-free for the sake of argument. They provide >>>>different freedoms under different conditions. Licenses are only a >>>>partially ordered set. >>> >>>Indeed. i was just expressing my personal preference. >> >>I understand, and even agree. But I was referring to your proposed >>"QPL or any more free license" -- and the GPL probably wouldn't >>qualify. I can't see INRIA going for a QPL/GPL split either, sadly. > > Ok, what about QPL or DFSG-free licence ? To clarify: if INRIA did accept a QPL/GPL dual-license, that would be wonderful. I believe Brian was simply stating that they might be hesitant to do so. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature