Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:13:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >> > Notice that nowhere in the QPL does it say that the original author can >> >> > compell the patch from you, he can only get it freely from either you >> >> > if you >> >> > publicly distribute it, or from one of the chain of people you >> >> > distribute it >> >> > too. >> >> >> >> You mean other than QPL 6, right? >> > >> > Well, QPL6c was removed, right ? And QPL clause 6 and QPL clause 3 and 4 >> > apply >> > to different cases of software, as we previously discussed. >> >> QPL 6c ws not removed. It's overridden for the specific case of >> Ocaml, but that doesn't help the other QPL-licensed software in >> Debian. I don't think there's much, but it's all important to somebody. > > Then don't speak about it in the new ocaml licence thread.
Sven, you're the one who said the QPL had nothing about compelled transmission of source. That's not true. The newest Ocaml license has nothing about that, but the Ocaml license is not the QPL. It's very different. >> >> BSD license, C has freedom with respect to the code and could freely >> >> contribute it to Debian. >> >> >> >> If we got the Caml code that way, that would be great. >> > >> > Indeed, but this is not going to happen. I also would 100x prefer a GPLed >> > ocaml over a BSSDish one though. >> >> It's hard to call the GPL a more free license than the QPL -- even if >> the QPL is called non-free for the sake of argument. They provide >> different freedoms under different conditions. Licenses are only a >> partially ordered set. > > Indeed. i was just expressing my personal preference. I understand, and even agree. But I was referring to your proposed "QPL or any more free license" -- and the GPL probably wouldn't qualify. I can't see INRIA going for a QPL/GPL split either, sadly. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
