Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
- From: Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 03:24:18 -0400
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20040712210441.GB31193@pegasos> <email@example.com> <20040713080108.GB373@pegasos>
Sven Luther wrote:
> 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.
> So, if you make a release that is not general, but limited to a small
> group of people, then the original author can request you to to send him
> a copy of the work, as you do to others, including source of the
> modifications, and right by 3b. Also read the part about "when
> The desert island thingy doesn't apply, as for all source code request,
> you are free to charge for the data transfer cost, which may include
> hiring an helicopter or a hydroplane, to go to you on your lonely island
> and ask you for the source code and get it from you.
Perhaps state that explicitly in the license then? Since it doesn't say
"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, provided the initial developer compensates you
appropriately for all your effort in doing so."
I dunno if that would be DFSG-free, but it would certainly be less scary.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.