On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 05:20:46PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:30:13PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:19:19AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote: > > > That certainly makes the QPL more attractive to me, as a > > > non-original-author. But I'm afraid I don't understand why any original > > > author would use it. > > > > Indeed, so by arguing that way, we could bring this clause to be modified by > > the upstream author, could we not ? > > You think that taking the concerns of debian-legal to OCaml upstream would > cause you to lose credibility with them, but tricking them into changing the > licence by saying the licence means something that it doesn't wouldn't lose > you any credibility?
Why are you assuming trickery and bad faith? That really sets back your own credibility. Pointing out unintended consequences is a time-honored way of getting authors to change their licenses. That you don't *agree* with Sven's interpretation doesn't mean you get to accuse him of dishonesty. Richard Braakman
