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

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

On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 10:54:45PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> 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?

See below.

> > 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

No, it grants some additional restrictions, which is why we have to consider
it.

> 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.

Edmund. Why don't you reply to my above question. What are you basing your
reasoning one to clearly ignore the distinction between modified works and
linked works that the QPL text makes at many occasions in the text ?

And notice also that it is this kind of arguing that makes me think you didn't
really read the QPL. I even asked you this question directly, and you ignored
it and continued with your argument without seeming to understand what i have
been saying to you.

Well, or that, or i am extremely stupid or have poor english understanding,
and totally missed your point.

> 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.

Yes we do, since we have to look at different clases of software. Section 3-4
covers modifications of the original software, that is patched sources whose
binary _replaces_ the original software, while section 6 has to do with linked
code, that is external/third-party/whatever software which _uses_ the original
or modified software. See the difference.

> 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

Ok, so you make that distinction. This is not Debian who requires this, it is
the QPL. Look at the LGPL for another licence which separate the modified and
linked permissions. A modification of the LGPLed work is vocered by the LGPL,
while a linked work is not (well a dynamically linked work is not, and a
statically linked fork needs some additional work, namely distribution of
object files).

> are presumably about to claim that BSD licences are non-free because
> they don't have a "linking" section.

Only if you don't really understand the matter at hand.

Friendly,

Sven Luther