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

Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.



On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 05:20:46PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:30:13PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:19:19AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote:
> > > That certainly makes the QPL more attractive to me, as a 
> > > non-original-author.  But I'm afraid I don't understand why any original 
> > > author would use it.
> > 
> > Indeed, so by arguing that way, we could bring this clause to be modified by
> > the upstream author, could we not ? 
> 
> You think that taking the concerns of debian-legal to OCaml upstream would
> cause you to lose credibility with them, but tricking them into changing the
> licence by saying the licence means something that it doesn't wouldn't lose
> you any credibility?

Why are you assuming trickery and bad faith?  That really sets back your
own credibility.  Pointing out unintended consequences is a time-honored
way of getting authors to change their licenses.

That you don't *agree* with Sven's interpretation doesn't mean you get
to accuse him of dishonesty.

Richard Braakman



Reply to: