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

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

[ I've been watching the QPL discussion with some interest and, dare I
  say it, hilarity. This just has to be replied to... ]

In article <[🔎] 6FA051CC-D407-11D8-B77B-000A959E1A06@alum.mit.edu> you write:
>The problem comes from these three clauses:
>       3b. When modifications to the Software are released under this
>       license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the
>       initial developer of the Software to distribute your
>       modification in future versions of the Software provided such
>       versions remain available under these terms in addition to any
>       other license(s) of the initial developer.
>       6b. You must explicitly license all recipients of your items to
>       use and re-distribute original and modified versions of the
>       items in both machine-executable and source code forms. The
>       recipients must be able to do so without any charges whatsoever,
>       and they must be able to re-distribute to anyone they choose.
>       6c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
>       initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
>       then you must supply one.
>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.

*snort* This is just getting comical now. Since when is supplying a
copy of source considered a fee?

>Additionally, 6b requires that I license my modifications to others 
>under a *more* permissive license than the QPL.  Those to whom I give 
>my items (presumably meaning my modifications) must be licensed to 
>distribute modified copies without charge, and the QPL imposes a 
>charge.  Since I can't distribute my modifications under the same terms 
>as the license of the original software, this also fails DFSG #3.

If you believe your argument about source requirements constituting a
fee, yes. In the real world, no. Try that in court and you'll get
laughed at.

Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
Support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression: http://www.eff.org/cafe/

Reply to: