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

Re: QPL non-DFSG compliance? What future for OCaml in Debian?



On 2004-07-19 16:33:34 +0100 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

1) point 6c of the QPL fails the chinese dissident or desert island tests. Apart from the the dubious justification of those tests (i would much have prefered particular DFSG points), i believe that the licence sets implicitly the cost of data transfer to the person requiring the sources. [...]

I am still contemplating whether the actual source transfer is a fee in itself. There have been some interesting replies to that idea.

2) the court of venue issue. All lwasuits must be filled at Versailles.

   Well, i am no lawyer, but i hardly find this non-free [...]

Why is it free? Why should the licensor be allowed to make any licensee to represent themselves in France? Much of your argument seems to be about choice of law rather than choice of venue. I think most people accept choice of law.

That said, i made those objections, and nobody cared to CC me their reply, if they did reply.

I have been away. I find your impatience as irritating as your continual unprovoked rudeness and paranoia.

For example, you must surely know why grep won't give a true list of affected packages, if you have given it any real thought. If you still don't get it, go look at the policy manual. (This is not my preferred style. It is an example of what Sven Luther keeps doing.)

--
MJR/slef    My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL;
Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast



Reply to: