On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:30:31PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > 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.
Sure, and i apologize for that. > >> >> 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. Ok, what about QPL or DFSG-free licence ? Friendly, Sven Luther
