On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 06:14:36PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > > >>On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > >> > >>>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > >>> > >>>>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>Thanks, but in all this thread, i have not seen a single reasonable > >>>>>suggestion, so i have some doubts about this. > >>>> > >>>>Yes, you have: dual-license under the GPL. It's a completely reasonable, > >>> > >>>Thanks all the same. It is unreasonable, since it is totally opposite to > >>>what > >>>upstream is trying to achieve. > >> > >>According to my best interpretation of msgid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], > >>OCaml upstream wants to either: > >> > >>1) be able to take other people's modifications proprietary. That's fine > >>for them, it's just non-free for us. > > > > Oh, ok. do we have a consensus on that ? could you point out why in clear > > points of the DFSG, and not some far fetched and controversed island > > paradise > > metahpors. Notice that the FSF doesn't seem toi think so, and it would make > > the BSD non-free, would it not ? > > As far as I can tell, there is no consensus on whether "upstream gets an > all-permissive license" is non-free. I personally consider it
Again, you didn't seem to read the QPL, or maybe didn't understand it. Where does it say an "all permisive licence" ? Friendly, Sven Luther
