Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
> * Brian Thomas Sniffen:
>
>>>> The Free copyleft equivalents are not fees, merely limited grants of
>>>> permission to distribute.
>>>
>>> And the QPL requirements are not fees either, they merely limit the
>>> grants of permission to modify?
>>
>> Fortunately, this part is the core, and I was correct. The QPL
>> requirements are not limitations on modification -- they are
>> requirements that if I modify in certain ways, I *must* then
>> distribute and grant licenses. So my argument does not work both
>> ways.
>
> But this is exactly the way copyleft works, not for modification but
> for distribution.
That's not how copyleft works, as I understand it. Perhaps I am
mistaken. As I know it, copyleft licenses let me make private
modifications and keep them to myself. If I distribute my work which
are derivative of copylefted works, I must send my work -- in source
form -- along with it. This is fine. But if you and I are working on
a new and improved Emacs in private, we do not need to send the FSF
anything, no matter what we pass back and forth between ourselves.
The QPL says that if you and I are working on a new Ocaml compiler,
then INRIA can demand we send them a copy. That seems very different
to me than what can happen with a copyleft license.
Can you show me any way that I might be forced to send my
modifications to Emacs to the FSF, given I never intentionally
communicate with them, and make no written offers to anybody?
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: