Re: QPL clause 6 irrelevant?

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:14:29PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > regarding libcwd.  At the time, I didn't see any dissents, and I
> > haven't seen anyone else bring up that angle.  If you look at the
> > ocaml licensing page
> > 
> >   http://caml.inria.fr/ocaml/LICENSE.html
> > 
> > you could argue that the ocaml authors agree with this interpretation.
> > So, first of all, does anyone dissent now?  If not, I think as long as
> > the ocaml authors agree with that interpretation, clause 6 is not a
> > problem.
> 
> It is, because it is explicit in that page that portions of the software
> *are* covered by clause 6.
> 
> "The one exception is custom top-level interactive systems built with
> ocamlmktop: those are composed of user code linked with a library containing
> large parts of the OCaml bytecode compiler. Those custom top-levels must
> comply with the requirements of paragraph 6, but that's pretty easy to do:
> just distribute them under an Open Source license."
> 
> Oddly, though, the OCaml authors don't mention the requirements of 6c, which
> are what we've had trouble with.  I wonder if that "just" is disclaiming the
> ability of the initial developer to compel distribution of other works.

Hmm.  I guess you're right.  Perhaps they could be convinced
otherwise.  The libcwd author was convinced.

Also, as MJ Ray noted, the license itself seems to imply an AND'ing of
conditions, rather than an OR'ing.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu