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 Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:30:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:13:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> >> 
> >> >> > Notice that nowhere in the QPL does it say that the original author can
> >> >> > compell the patch from you, he can only get it freely from either you if you
> >> >> > publicly distribute it, or from one of the chain of people you distribute it
> >> >> > too.
> >> >> 
> >> >> You mean other than QPL 6, right?
> >> >
> >> > Well, QPL6c was removed, right ? And QPL clause 6 and QPL clause 3 and 4 apply
> >> > to different cases of software, as we previously discussed.
> >> 
> >> QPL 6c ws not removed.  It's overridden for the specific case of
> >> Ocaml, but that doesn't help the other QPL-licensed software in
> >> Debian.  I don't think there's much, but it's all important to somebody.
> >
> > Then don't speak about it in the new ocaml licence thread.
> 
> Sven, you're the one who said the QPL had nothing about compelled
> transmission of source.  That's not true.  The newest Ocaml license has
> nothing about that, but the Ocaml license is not the QPL.  It's very different.

Sure, and i apologize for that.

> >> >> BSD license, C has freedom with respect to the code and could freely
> >> >> contribute it to Debian.
> >> >> 
> >> >> If we got the Caml code that way, that would be great.
> >> >
> >> > Indeed, but this is not going to happen. I also would 100x prefer a GPLed
> >> > ocaml over a BSSDish one though.
> >> 
> >> It's hard to call the GPL a more free license than the QPL -- even if
> >> the QPL is called non-free for the sake of argument.  They provide
> >> different freedoms under different conditions.  Licenses are only a
> >> partially ordered set.
> >
> > Indeed. i was just expressing my personal preference.
> 
> I understand, and even agree.  But I was referring to your proposed
> "QPL or any more free license" -- and the GPL probably wouldn't
> qualify.  I can't see INRIA going for a QPL/GPL split either, sadly.

Ok, what about QPL or DFSG-free licence ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther