Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Hello debian-legal.
> 
> I don't know why, but Brian has been bothering me about claiming the QPL
> is non-free. I agree with the emacs thing, and am working on a solution
> to it when time permits, and upstream has also agreed to it in
> principle, so this should be solved before the now imminent (whatever
> this means for debian release cycle :) sarge release.

Great

> Anyway, it would rightly surprise me if the QPL would be reveled
> non-free after all this years of use and the KDE controversy it was
> linked to, and i believe that we have more than just ocaml as QPLed
> programs in debian. 

It sometimes happens that the first vetting of a license doesn't catch
all of the problems.  For example, there were problems in the GNU FDL
that were not caught until much later.  The IBM CPL also has some
minor problems that came up later.  License analysis is a slow,
ongoing affair.

> So i request the help of debian-legal to help me clarify this thing,
> and either make an official statement that the QPL is non-free, or
> shut Brian up, and let me back to work on my packages.

There is no official mouthpiece of debian-legal.  However, I would say
that the consensus on debian-legal is that the QPL is not DFSG-free.
The "choice of venue" and the "send changes back" clauses are both
problematic.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu