Re: OCAML QPL Issue
Scripsit Barak Pearlmutter <email@example.com>
> The QPL contains clause 6c which states:
> 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
> software items that link with the original or modified versions of the
> Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following
> c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
> initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
> then you must supply one.
> This would seem to fail the Chinese Dissident Test.
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). Normally,
extending a library with a main program counts as modifications - at
least that's the case in the theory of GPL, and it is my impression
that this interpretation rests on solid legal ground.
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.
Henning Makholm "However, the fact that the utterance by
Epimenides of that false sentence could imply the
existence of some Cretan who is not a liar is rather unsettling."