Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: QPL 6c argumentation.
Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>:
> > > > Anyway, there's a third chance of getting 6c past debian-legal, which
> > > > someone brought up in a different thread and which might be the
> > > > strongest yet:
> > > >
> > > > (3) Claim that the rights granted in section 3 of the QPL are
> > > > sufficient to make the software free so there is no need to even look
> > > > at section 6.
> > >
> > > No, since they apply to two different things. QPL 3 and 4 is for modifications
> > > of the original software, while QPL 6 is for applications linking with the
> > > software.
> >
> > I'm surprised to see you dismiss so readily what is potentially your
> > strongest argument, but perhaps it's a trick to make me argue your
>
> No, because i honestly believe that the QPL makes this modified work/linked
> work distinction, so you can't use this case.
Do you think that the QPL without section 6 is a free software
licence?
If YES, how do you argue that section 6 detracts from the permissions
granted by section 3?
If NO, how do you argue that the language of section 3 excludes the
kind of derived work that is permitted by section 6?
Reply to: