On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 11:12:52PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 09:34:00 +0200 Sven Luther wrote: > > > 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 ? > > IMHO, it would not improve the modified-QPL freeness.
Why not ? It would say : upstream can redistribute under the QPL and any other licence that is considered DFSG-Free, including the BSD licence. What do you find non-free in this ? > It however would really improve the ocaml freeness, if ocaml itself were > dual-licensed under a 2-clause BSD license (or X11 or Expat or...) > besides the QPL. In that case Debian could choose to distribute > under the 2-clause BSD license (or X11 or...) and everyone could be > happy... Notice that the situation is not exactly the same. I didn't say the ocaml would be dual licenced, but that upstream has the right to distribute your changes under some random free licence, including the 2-clause BSD one, to the people they chose to. Not necessarily the world at large though. Friendly, Sven Luther
