Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 05:18:36PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> 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.
Please let this thread die as it should. I don't even remember the full
background of this thread. I also seriously doubt that they would go with the
GPL, altough i think it more probable than a BSDed ocaml.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: