Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.

[Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <edmundo@rano.org>]

Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>:

> > The problems concerning QPL 3 remain,
> 
> Not so great.
> 
> > but consensus about it has been much more dubious,
> 
> I haven't seen anyone seriously dispute my analysis in
> 
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01705.html

I'm not convinced that QPL 3 makes it non-free. Of course I don't like
QPL 3, so don't expect me to spend much time arguing for it, but I
have mentioned it a few times. For example:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01315.html

I don't see a clear qualitative distinction between the licensing
required by QPL 3 and the licensing required by the GPL, for example,
that makes one a "fee" but not the other.