Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: Sven's conclusion.

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

Ok, again i repost here my conclusions about the current state of the QPL as
seen in the ocaml case :

In conclusion, there may be only two points at discussion here, which cast
some doubt about the DFSG-freeness of the QPL as applied to ocaml :

  1) Do we consider the right to include modifications of patches also
  distributed as binaries under the QPL and the right for the upstream author
  to buy software linked with the QPLed work a royalty or fee, thus breaking
  the DFSG #1. I would argue against it, since the cose to the modificator is
  nil.

  2) Is the cost induced by hiring a non local lawyer for a court action over
  doing the same locally enough to make use consider addding a new DFSG
  guideline to prohibit such a think. And will this not be a free check to
  licence violators ?

Please continue arguing about those in this subthread.

Friendly,

Sven Luther