Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> writes:
> [ 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?
Supplying source *with a binary I'm already distributing* is not a
fee. But if I demand that you provide me with copies of all the
software you've written, even that which you kept secret, that's
clearly not free. If I demand that when you give a copy of software
to some third party, you send me a copy and a license, that's not free.
It would not be free for Emacs' license to demand that anything
written with Emacs be sent to the FSF with a license for them to copy
or modify it as they see fit.
>>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.
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: