Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
Josh Triplett writes:
>>
>> The QPL is bad news in yet another way. Do we need a DFSG basis for "forces
>> people to break the law"?
>
>That is indeed a marvelous example of how the QPL is non-free. I'm
>definitely putting that in my summary, with links to these two mails.
>Thank you both.
*sigh* So much for debate. We've had this raised and debunked several
times. WHY does a stupid local law make a license non-free? If
somebody passes a law that prohibits distribution of source code
without fee, would you consider the GPL to be non-free at that point?
If the US is backward enough to attempt to restrict exports of
software to certain states, that's NOT a problem in the licenses so
affected. Or are we trying to make a US-centric set of DFSG now?
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
"C++ ate my sanity" -- Jon Rabone
Reply to: