[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


Scripsit Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:16:42AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:

> > Given that the component covered by the QPL is just the compiler, it
> > seems that there is no reason why QPL 6 is even relevant for that
> > particular piece of sofware.

> Have you communicated with the oCaml folks before?

Not personally. However, I've worked together with people who've tried
to raise them about getting permission to GPL the runtime system of
Moscow ML (which is derived from an earlier version of oCaml and thus
has interited a non-free license). As far as I know, they have not
responded to license-related inquires at all.

> Do you think they would be amenable to dual-licensing the compiler
> under the QPL and GPL?

I'm not sure. Rumor in the functional-programming community has it
that they actually do want the patch clause, lest their cool compiler
technology would be too easily reused in implementations of unworthy
languages like Java (!). I don't know how much truth there is here,

However, I hope we agree that QPL as it stands *is* DFSG-free.

Henning Makholm                                                 "Fuck Lone."

Reply to: