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


Scripsit Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>

> [NOTE: This is a personal opinion.]

> I think patch clauses are onerous, too;

I happen to agree personally, but since the DFSG #4 allows them pretty
explicitly it's not something that we could honestly use to declare a
license non-DFSG-free. Unless someone goes through the hassle of
devising a way to change the DFSG...

> 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.

The licensing of the software in question, oCaml, turns out to be
sligtly more complex than apparent from Barak's initial post. It
consists of a compiler and a runtime module (bytecode interpreter +
libraries). The compiler is under QPL. The runtime module is under
LGPL plus an explicit permission to link non-LGPL things to it. I
haven't yet figured out how this permission goes beyond what the LGPL
itself says.

Given that the component covered by the QPL is just the compiler, it
seems that there is no reason why QPL 6 is even relevant for that
particular piece of sofware.

Henning Makholm               "... not one has been remembered from the time
                         when the author studied freshman physics. Quite the
            contrary: he merely remembers that such and such is true, and to
          explain it he invents a demonstration at the moment it is needed."

Reply to: