Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: QPL 6c argumentation.

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

On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 07:25:09PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> 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?

I am tentatively in favor of that, yes. I believe the remaining questions are upto
what point the pro and contra arguments will be weighted, but more on this in
a few days when i will make another summary.

> If YES, how do you argue that section 6 detracts from the permissions
> granted by section 3?

They do not, since they apply to two different clases of software. QPL 3
speaks about modifications of the original software, while QPL 6 speaks about
software whose sole link to the original software is that it links with it.

Both are derived works, naturally, or the point would be moot.

> If NO, how do you argue that the language of section 3 excludes the
> kind of derived work that is permitted by section 6?

Same response as above.

No my turn to ask you a question. I now repeteadly mentioned the distinction
above, how it is written in the licence in multiple places, and how the
wording of the QPL 6 header confirms this.

What is your argumentation to ignore the above and makes as if modified work
and linked works are one and the same thing ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther