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 | email@example.com