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

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 11:12:52PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> 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.

Why not ? It would say : upstream can redistribute under the QPL and any other
licence that is considered DFSG-Free, including the BSD licence.

What do you find non-free in this ? 

> 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...

Notice that the situation is not exactly the same. I didn't say the ocaml
would be dual licenced, but that upstream has the right to distribute your
changes under some random free licence, including the 2-clause BSD one, to the
people they chose to. Not necessarily the world at large though.

Friendly,

Sven Luther