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
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. firstname.lastname@example.org
Support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression: http://www.eff.org/cafe/