Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG : QPL 3b argumentation.
Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>:
> First point, this only applies to released software. Also let's see what the
> trolltech annotation has to say about it, since it covers some doubt in the
> language above :
Firstly, I would think that the Trolltech annotation is irrelevant
unless INRIA have publicly stated that it applies to their licence.
Secondly, even if they have done that it would probably only help to
disambiguate the licence where it is ambiguous, and I don't think it
is ambiguous in this case. Thirdly, I don't think the bit you quoted
from the annotation out of context means what you think it means. So,
to save time, I'd rather just ignore the annotation for now.
I think the effect of 3b is to give the initial developer the right to
incorporate modifications into their code which they can subsequently
licence in any way they like provided they also make it available
under the QPL.
I think you agree with this really, so I don't know why you dragged
the annotation into this.
> The only way this would be considered as non-free is under the DFSG #1, when
> you consider the fact of giving those right back to the upstream author a fee
> or royalty. Ok, this can be argued, and probably will be in a subthread of the
> corresponding topic, but my own position is that if we consider it a fee, it
> must include a cost to M to fullfill it, and since M still keeps the whole
> right to the patch he wrote, and in no way loses any of his rights to it, it
> cannot really be considered a fee.
I disagree with that argument.
Firstly, I don't think the reference to "royalty of other fee" in DFSG
#1 is meant to be interpreted narrowly; I think it's meant as an
example of a restriction.
Secondly, giving someone a right which they didn't already have does
potentially "include a cost" because it prevents you from asking for
payment in return for giving that right.
However, I think there is another argument for 3b not making the QPL
non-free: M can choose to grant everyone a BSD-like licence for the
modifications, and then the initial developer doesn't get any right
they didn't already have.
Another way of stating the same argument: a licence that forces
modifiers to licence their modifications to the initial developer is
no worse than a licence that forces modifiers to licence their
modifications to everyone, and the latter is arguably still free.
I'm undecided, but I think I can just about accept 3b as consistent
with the DFSG. Note that I'm not a DD, so my opinion is irrelevant.
Only my arguments might count, if you choose to accept them.
Reply to: