On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 05:18:36PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > > 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: > >>>> > >>>>>>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 ? > > To clarify: if INRIA did accept a QPL/GPL dual-license, that would be > wonderful. I believe Brian was simply stating that they might be > hesitant to do so.
Please let this thread die as it should. I don't even remember the full background of this thread. I also seriously doubt that they would go with the GPL, altough i think it more probable than a BSDed ocaml. Friendly, Sven Luther
