Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 09:41:51AM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
> Sven Luther said:
> > No, the QPL itself is non-free, and doesn't allow for modification, which
> > is
> > why we chose to use the pure QPL, and then the special exception.
> > The choice of law clause is allowed to be modified though by Trolltech, so
> > it
> > is less problematic.
> Ok, one "apt-get install wdiff" later, and I agree with you completely. I
> thought I had read about some wording changes to other clauses, but there
> aren't any in the licenses you'd posted.
> Would it be possible, though, (perhaps in the debian copyright file) to
> indicate that this is not licensed under the (non-free) stock QPL, but
> rather a relaxed QPL? Just as a note for future readers?
Euh ? Where would it say that ? And is the :
The Compiler is distributed under the terms of the Q Public License
version 1.0 (included below).
As a special exception to the Q Public Licence, you may develop
application programs, reusable components and other software items
that link with the original or modified versions of the Software
and are not made available to the general public, without any of the
additional requirements listed in clause 6c of the Q Public licence.
Not clear enough ?