Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:

> * Brian T. Sniffen:
>
>> That is, I owe two fees to the initial developer of the software.
>> First, I give him a license to distribute my modifications in future
>> versions of the software, and to use that code in non-free derivatives
>> of the software.  Second, if he asks for it I also supply a copy even
>> if I have not distributed them to anyone.  This is a fee as described
>> by DFSG #1.
>
> This argument *must* be flawed because the same argument can show that
> *any* copyleft license violates DFSG #1, which clearly is not the case.

I disagree.  For example, the GPL does not impose such a fee.  If I
make private changes to GNU Emacs, I may keep them to myself.  If
FooCorp pays me to make changes to GNU Emacs, I may make such changes
and distribute them, along with source, to FooCorp.  I owe the FSF
nothing.

Only if I give a copy of the changes to the FSF must I also give them
source (or a promise, yes).  That is, the GPL lets me distribute
(binary+source) packages, or (binary+promise) packages, but not just
binaries alone.

The QPL versions are fees because they are paid to the initial
developer when I distribute to some third party.  The Free copyleft
equivalents are not fees, merely limited grants of permission to
distribute.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu