Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
On 2004-07-13 00:33:38 +0100 Matthew Garrett
<mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
What if I only wish to distribute binaries? The requirement that I
distribute source alongside them is a fee.
How is this a fee, if we are not obliged to give it to the licensor?
[...] In order to claim that you can't distribute under
the same terms you need to demonstrate that the requirement to
provide a
copy of the modifications upstream equates to a charge. I've seen no
convincing arguments of the sort.
Equally, I've seen no convincing arguments that our copyrighted
modifications are without value. I am interested in such arguments, or
other demonstrations that sending them upstream wouldn't be viewed as
a charge.
Generally, *most* of those questions seemed fair and I hope they get
interesting answers.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
"Matthew Garrett is quite the good sort of fellow, despite what
my liver is sure to say about him in [...] 40 years" -- branden
Reply to: