On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 01:36:02PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 06:14:36PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > >>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" ? > > I was paraphrasing 3b, which grants upstream the right to distribute > your software in their proprietary product (as long as they also put it > in the Free version).
And i am no native english speaker, so please explain to me how an "all permisive licence", which somehow translate to a no restriction licence, correlates to the "as long as" construct you use above, which as far as my english understanding is concerned is a restriction or constraint, and thus contradictory with your first claim. > I don't think such a requirement is non-free, just obnoxious. So why are we arguing about it ? Let's go to the real problems. Friendly, Sven Luther
