[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OCAML QPL Issue



On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:36:11PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> 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.

[NOTE: This is a personal opinion.]

I think patch clauses are onerous, too; they were only permitted in the
original DFSG, as I recall, because we thought Dan J. Bernstein would
compromise with us regarding qmail and other software he distributes.
That turned out to be a bad calculation.

Therefore, either way the QPL could be employed would be excessively
inimical to freedom.  Dual-licensing under the GPL and QPL appeared to
be good enough for Trolltech, so presumably the same reasoning that
they used when making that decision will be persuasive to other users of
the QPL.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |     When I die I want to go peacefully
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     in my sleep like my ol' Grand
branden@debian.org                 |     Dad...not screaming in terror like
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     his passengers.

Attachment: pgpjRFTxICWNl.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: