On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 02:56:55PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> However, I hope we agree that QPL as it stands *is* DFSG-free.
That is not, and has never been, my personal opinion.
--
G. Branden Robinson|The errors of great men are
Debian GNU/Linux |v
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:16:42AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Given that the component covered by the QPL is just the compiler, it
> > seems that there is no reason why QPL 6 is even relevant for that
> > particular piece of sofware.
> Have y
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:16:42AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Dual-licensing under the GPL and QPL appeared to be good enough for
> > Trolltech, so presumably the same reasoning that they used when
> > making that decision will be persuasive to other users of the QPL.
>
> The licensing of t
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 12:38:58AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Thanks for the correction; I'll assume your representation is accurate,
> as I wasn't subscribed to -private at the time. Someone once
> characterized the patch clause as having to do with qmail to me, though.
> Oh well. I should
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 01:50:54AM +, James Troup wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think patch clauses are onerous, too; they were only permitted in the
> > original DFSG, as I recall, because we thought Dan J. Bernstein would
> > compromise with us regarding qmail
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > However the question is whether one needs to invoke clause 6 at
> > all. Clauses 3 and 4 allow the development of "modified versions"
> > without any forced distribution (but with a patch clause).
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 09:26:01PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[DFSG#4]
> I'm not sure I think it was a mistake though; I don't see it as all
> that objectionable.
I consider it objectionable because of what happens if you try to
maintain a forked version, or if you try to mix code from di
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However the question is whether one needs to invoke clause 6 at
> all. Clauses 3 and 4 allow the development of "modified versions"
> without any forced distribution (but with a patch clause).
Clause 3(b) seems to require forced distribution of some
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I happen to agree personally, but since the DFSG #4 allows them pretty
> explicitly it's not something that we could honestly use to declare a
> license non-DFSG-free. Unless someone goes through the hassle of
> devising a way to change the DFSG...
Su
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think patch clauses are onerous, too; they were only permitted in the
> original DFSG, as I recall, because we thought Dan J. Bernstein would
> compromise with us regarding qmail and other software he distributes
I don't recall this; do you have a
Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [NOTE: This is a personal opinion.]
> I think patch clauses are onerous, too;
I happen to agree personally, but since the DFSG #4 allows them pretty
explicitly it's not something that we could honestly use to declare a
license non-DFSG-free. Unless
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:36:11PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> However the question is whether one needs to invoke clause 6 at
> all. Clauses 3 and 4 allow the development of "modified versions"
> without any forced distribution (but with a patch clause). Normally,
> extending a library with a
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 09:55:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I think Barak's point is: should we revisit that decision?
I think we should.
The "case law" metaphor appears to have a lot more traction now than it
did a year to a year-and-a-half ago.
And case law sometimes means acknowle
Scripsit Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The QPL contains clause 6c which states:
> 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
> software items that link with the original or modified versions of the
> Software. These items, when distributed, are su
"Oliver M. Bolzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 07:38:35PM -0700, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote...
>
> > contain the QPL, apparently only applying to some of the source files.
> > The QPL contains clause 6c which states:
> >
> > 6. You may develop ap
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 07:38:35PM -0700, Barak Pearlmutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote...
> contain the QPL, apparently only applying to some of the source files.
> The QPL contains clause 6c which states:
>
> 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
> softwa
The files
/usr/share/doc/ocaml-native-compilers/copyright
/usr/share/doc/ocaml/copyright
/usr/share/doc/ocamlweb/copyright
contain the QPL, apparently only applying to some of the source files.
The QPL contains clause 6c which states:
6. You may develop application programs, reus
17 matches
Mail list logo
