Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
Matthew Palmer writes:
> Having slept on it, I've decided that in the specific case of the QPL, this
> particular situation is not a problem for Debian, but ONLY because we can
> avoid the whole issue by making the items in question available to the general public (which we do).
The QPL doesn't release you from the obligation to provide changes to
the author if you have since stopped distributing the software (for
whatever reason). That clause applies to *any* time at which the code
is not available to the general public. It would be plausible for an
SCO or Microsoft to demand that a Debian package maintainer provide a
three-year-old version of a package because Debian users downloaded
that modified version.
[snip]
> We're taking a similar path with the GPL, anyway -- the non-freeness of 3b
> and 3c is OK because we're distributing under 3a. By analogy, the
> non-freeness of compelled unrelated distribution of linked items is OK(ish)
> because we're taking the "publically available" route.
The GPL is qualitatively different because it bounds the time during
which you must act to comply with the license: Either immediately, if
you make the source code available at time of transfer, or for the
next three years, if you only make the binary code available. The QPL
obligations do not terminate.
It may also be qualitatively different because the upstream author
gets a symmetric license and cannot compel downstream modifiers to
provide changes; but that is a different discussion.
Michael Poole
Reply to: