Re: OCAML QPL Issue

[tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> 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 sort, but I'm
not entirely sure about that.

> Viewed in that light, QPL 6 gives an *additional* permission to
> develop application programs and distribute them under *another*
> free(ish) license than the QPL, provided that one submits to forced
> distribution. Without this permission the license would still pass
> DFSG #3 (due to the GPL-like clauses 3 and 4), so it should not be
> considered non-free just because it is there.

Your interpretation seems to read clause 6 entirely out of the
license.  I mean, what is it left restricting?  The only material
difference between clause 6 and clause 3 is the forced publication
requirement 6(c).