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

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

MJ Ray wrote:

>It was suggested to me that compelled contribution of copyrightable 
>work to the upstream would probably be classed as consideration in 
>England, although I've not been able to verify that. The suggestor is 
>not a lawyer, but has studied contract law for another qualification, 
>which is more than I have.

It's possible that there are certain narrow conditions involving fun
legal definitions under which the compelled contribution of
copyrightable code might be considered a fee. But the DFSG isn't a legal
document, so we're free to interpret it how we want. I'm certainly
strongly inclined to believe that "fee" in DFSG 1 is referring to money.
If there's any evidence that it was framed to the contrary, I'd be

Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org

Reply to: