Re: OCAML QPL Issue
Henning Makholm <email@example.com> writes:
> I happen to agree personally, but since the DFSG #4 allows them pretty
> explicitly it's not something that we could honestly use to declare a
> license non-DFSG-free. Unless someone goes through the hassle of
> devising a way to change the DFSG...
Sure. Branden was, I think, merely saying that he thinks the decision
was a mistake, not that we can now ignore it.
I'm not sure I think it was a mistake though; I don't see it as all