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. >> 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. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
