Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>:
> The reproach which is being done is twofold :
Perhaps two separate threads would be justified. I'm only replying on
the first "reproach".
> c. 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.
> Now, the clause which causes problem is the 6c, which states that upstream
> might also want to get those works linked with the software. I understand that
> this may be considered non-free, but let's go over the DFSG points one by one,
> and not start with discutable chinese disident or desert island stuff which
> only muddy the water.
As I see it 6c is a serious privacy problem. Perhaps the requirement
for privacy is not directly implied by any of DFSG, but I can't
imagine people being very happy with the requirement to let the
initial developers know how the software is being used. Do you think
upstream really need this clause?
Reply to: