On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 09:34:00 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
> Notice that in the ocaml case, it is well possible that the additional
> licences is more near the BSD, since it allows for third party to make
> modifications under a more permisive licence than the LGPL/QPL duo.
>
> So, would a wording where QPL 3b is modified to say that it may be
> relicenced under the QPL and under a more permisive licence be
> acceptable ?
IMHO, it would not improve the modified-QPL freeness.
It however would really improve the ocaml freeness, if ocaml itself were
dual-licensed under a 2-clause BSD license (or X11 or Expat or...)
besides the QPL. In that case Debian could choose to distribute
under the 2-clause BSD license (or X11 or...) and everyone could be
happy...
Anyway I think that a QPL/BSD dual license would be equivalent to a BSD
license.
So, if INRIA would like to go in this direction, I would suggest to drop
the QPL entirely and switch to a 2-clause BSD license...
P.S.: please do not reply to me directly, as I'm a list subscriber.
I would prefer you reply to the list only. Thanks.
--
| GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | $ fortune
Francesco | Key fingerprint = | Q: What is purple
Poli | C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | and commutes?
| 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | A: A boolean grape.
Attachment:
pgp56pk6qtIEA.pgp
Description: PGP signature