Re: OCAML QPL Issue
Scripsit email@example.com (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Henning Makholm <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > 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).
> Clause 3(b) seems to require forced distribution of some sort, but I'm
> not entirely sure about that.
No, it says something about forced granting of rights. If the upstream
author somehow gets a copy of your patch (which you're not required to
help him do), he must be allowed to backport them into the official
version. This is actually less restricting than what, say, the GPL
asks, because the GPL asks you to give EVERYONE this permission.
> Your interpretation seems to read clause 6 entirely out of the
> license. I mean, what is it left restricting? The only material
> difference between clause 6 and clause 3 is the forced publication
> requirement 6(c).
No, the other difference is that clause 6 does not require the
modified work to be distributed under the QPL itself. It's an offer to
get rid of virality if you restrict yourself to using the software as
a library, in exchange for giving a copy to the upstream author.
Henning Makholm "... and that Greek, Thucydides"