[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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



Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>:

> > Do you think that the QPL without section 6 is a free software
> > licence?
> 
> I am tentatively in favor of that, yes.

> > 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.

That seems like a contradiction to me. You seem to be saying that the
QPL without section 6 is a free licence, section 6 does not detract
from the permissions granted by section 3, and yet we have to look at
section 6 in detail to tell whether the QPL is free. How does that
work?

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

It looks to me like section 6 grants some additional permission in the
case of mere linking. Without section 6 the entire work would have to
be QPL (with a licence grant to the initial developer). With section 6
only the part that contains the original software has to be QPL; the
rest can have any free licence, more or less, except that there's an
additional requirement (6c) that might be problematic.

So the argument here is that the DFSG requires the conditions in QPL 3
to be acceptable, and if they are, then the DFSG is satisfied and we
don't have to look at QPL 6.

I'm concerned that you might be heading in the direction of claiming
that Debian requires explicit permission to link in addition to
general permission to distribute modified versions, in which case you
are presumably about to claim that BSD licences are non-free because
they don't have a "linking" section.



Reply to: