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

Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free



Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, luther@debian.org wrote:
>>>The correct course of action is for d-legal to make a reasonable suggestion,
>>
>>Thanks, but in all this thread, i have not seen a single reasonable
>>suggestion, so i have some doubts about this.
> 
> Yes, you have: dual-license under the GPL.  It's a completely reasonable,
> sane suggestion, applicable in the vast majority of cases.  It may very
> well not be applicable in this particular case, but it's still a sane and
> reasonable suggestion in most cases, and fits my explanation of "course of
> action" exactly.

For that matter, I also mentioned that the alternative of simply waiving
the two problematic clauses, which would be the smallest possible
change, will be included in the second draft of the summary.

- Josh Triplett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: