Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> writes:
> This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which says "you
> can't do that". I'm not distributing prohibited technology to an embargoed
> location by choice. I never thought "hmm, wouldn't it be cool if I sent
> this to Iran". Instead, the terms of the licence are forcing me to do that.
Almost -- they force you to do that if you modify and distribute. So
you don't have freedom with respect to the software, because you can't
modify and distribute without the license urging you to potentially
break the law.
> I have no way of knowing that my compliance with the licence will some day
> require me to break the law. It's a downright hideous licence term, and a
> pretty damn good argument for why forced unrelated distribution is a bad
> thing.
That it is. Thanks for pulling it out as a clean example.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: