Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
* Brian Thomas Sniffen:
> 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.
Of course, copyleft does not impose a fee in the sense of DFSG #1.
> The QPL versions are fees because they are paid to the initial
> developer when I distribute to some third party.
DFSG #1 does not talk about who receives the fee. If the license
required to pay $1 to the receiver of each copy, this would clearly be
a fee and a violation of that clause, but the original author would
not benefit from it.
> The Free copyleft equivalents are not fees, merely limited grants of
> permission to distribute.
And the QPL requirements are not fees either, they merely limit the
grants of permission to modify?
As you can see, your argument works both ways. 8-)
(I'm not sure if the QPL pass all the other DFSG clauses, though.)
Reply to: