On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 09:02:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > Of course, I suspect TrollTech (and other copyright holders that use the > QPL license) didn't think about such a possibility. That's because the > usual choice for "any other license(s)" is one or more proprietary > license(s) that do(es) not allow modification or redistribution.
Notice that in the ocaml case, it is well possible that the additional licences is more near the BSD, since it allows for third party to make modifications under a more permisive licence than the LGPL/QPL duo. So, would a wording where QPL 3b is modified to say that it may be relicenced under the QPL and under a more permisive licence be acceptable ? Friendly, Sven Luther
