Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 06:14:36PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, luther@debian.org wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>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,
> >>>
> >>>Thanks all the same. It is unreasonable, since it is totally opposite to what
> >>>upstream is trying to achieve.
> >>
> >>According to my best interpretation of msgid:[🔎] 20040719163412.GA11755@pegasos,
> >>OCaml upstream wants to either:
> >>
> >>1) be able to take other people's modifications proprietary. That's fine
> >>for them, it's just non-free for us.
> >
> > Oh, ok. do we have a consensus on that ? could you point out why in clear
> > points of the DFSG, and not some far fetched and controversed island paradise
> > metahpors. Notice that the FSF doesn't seem toi think so, and it would make
> > the BSD non-free, would it not ?
>
> As far as I can tell, there is no consensus on whether "upstream gets an
> all-permissive license" is non-free. I personally consider it
Again, you didn't seem to read the QPL, or maybe didn't understand it. Where
does it say an "all permisive licence" ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: