Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: QPL 6c argumentation.
On 2004-07-23 13:25:04 +0100 Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org>
| 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and
| software items that link with the original or modified versions of
| Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the
Now comes the second complication. This entry covers software which
is not a
modified version of the original software, but which links with it.
As I posted earlier today, I am a little uneasy about this
interpretation. Nothing I saw seemed to exclude application programs
(or ...) from c3 and c4. Similarly, the reverse for c3: especially, I
think about modifications which turn part of ocaml into a linked (but
seperate) reusable component. What did I miss?
The upstream author can request a copy of the items, if they are
but not openly distributed (in which case he just needs to get the
version). One could argue again that this would mean a breach of the
since the right of the author to those software would be considered a
royalty, but the same argumentation as above makes me reject that.
If this is limited to linked works in the way you describe *and* a
transfer cost can be required, this clause seems free. It is an
obnoxious practical problem for non-initial authors, who are forced to
release to particular people under particular licences in order to be
distributable. Essentially, it looks impossible to totally copyleft
anything which the QPL touches.
As I wrote above and elsewhere, I'm not sure about your
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL;
Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast