Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
* Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> [040720 04:06]:
> DFSG 1) it was claimed that giving the linked items back to upstream on
> request is considered a fee, which may invalidate this licence.
> How much of
> this claim is realistic, and does it constitute a fee ? After all, you lose
> nothing if you give it to upstream, so it doesn't cost you.
Wow, this is quite a strong assertion. Especially after many people
describes situations where it cost you and/or brings you in risk of
costs.
> DFSG 5) and 6) it was claimed that one of those is broken by the desert island
> or chinese dissident tests, i have seen no consensus as a quick overview of
> the thread prior to my involvement shows. I personally dispute those claims as
> not only irrealistic, but also as not applying here, since the request should
> be done nominally.
What do you mean by "nominally"? That when I'm "initial deleveloper" and
want to stop someone on an desert island from using my software, I have
to know his name before? Or give an evil goverment a reguest they shall
under my name place each residents name on it and give it to him?
For DFSG 5: What about the group of people that is in countries that
impose an embargo or export restrictions on countries the "initial
developer" is in.
Consider something like a ssl-library was under this licence in the
times where those were more strictly handled and the "initial developer"
was outside the USA.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing
an editor and a MTA.
Reply to: