Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes: >> a) Modified clause 3a to allow for adding authors to and translation of >> copyright notices. > > That still isn't free. It must be permitted to remove any given > notice, as long as a correct one is added elsewhere. Consider it in the context of the patch clause. You can't remove or change any of the original code, so you can't remove or change any of the original copyright notices either. >>One last trouble i have is that the QPL 1.0 state : >> >> Copyright (C) 1999 Troll Tech AS, Norway. >> Everyone is permitted to copy and >> distribute this license document. >> >>So, this would make it illegal to modify the QPL as i have done >>here, right ? > > That's right. > >>Another way the upstream author has been suggesting was to keep the QPL 1.0 as >>is, and saying that ocaml is under the QPL 1.0 licence, except that clause QPL >>6c and the Choice of venue part of the Choice of Law clause doesn'y apply. > > That kind of license editing by inclusion quickly gets confusing. > It's not non-free, just painful for end users to understand. Well, if you want a license similar to the QPL but with the problematic clauses removed, then since you can't just remove them (because of the above issue regarding the copyright on the QPL itself), this is probably the only option. "As an exception, you may ignore clause 6c and the choice of venue entirely." is perfectly fine. Also, since TrollTech has officially stated that other copyright holders who use the QPL may change the choice of venue, it can be removed directly without a problem. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature