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

[Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <edmundo@rano.org>]

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

> 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.

Because I have already expressed my reasoning as clearly as I can.

The concept of granting additional restrictions doesn't make much
sense to me.

Note that QPL 6 does NOT start with "If you develop ..."; it starts
with "You may develop ...". On the face of it, I can't read this as a
further restriction on QPL 3. Obviously, if upstreams claims it is,
then I will have to accept it as such, and then I can agree that the
QPL is not a free software licence, because I don't think the
restrictions in QPL 6 are compatible with the way the DFSG are
traditionally applied.

Anyway, I suggest you wait a bit before talking to upstream about QPL
6, because it might turn out that the consensus is that it doesn't
matter for DFSG-freeness.