Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:56:51PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> I think you would find it hard to gain consensus that "fee" should be
> interpreted in this manner. The GPL requires that I provide either all
> the source code, a written offer or alternatively information regarding
> the written offer I obtained. A reading of "fee" that broad would cause
> the GPL to fail on the same grounds.
>
> >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.
>
> I think that it would be even harder to claim that "charge" covers this.
>
> >On the other hand, perhaps my understanding of the DFSG is flawed.
> >I've CC'd this to debian-legal, in the hopes that they can clarify.
>
> The main discussed issues with the QPL are:
>
> 1) It requires that distributed modifications be made available to
> upstream if they request. This causes problems for people on desert
> islands who want to distribute software and can't send changes upstream
Not really, since upstream will have as much trouble requesting the
modifications, or even knowing about them, won't they ? :)))
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: