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

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

On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:40:29AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>:
> 
> > since a given software can either be a modification of the original software
> > (which can replace it) or link with the original or modified software (and
> > thus use it).
> 
> One last attempt:
> 
> I create a program P that consists of an executable X linked with a
> library L. X links with L, but P is a modification of L, albeit a
> modification that was made by adding material to L.

Ok, in this case, you can either distribute it together in the L tarball, and
it is a modification, or you can distribute it separatedly, and in this case
it is a work linked with the software.

In any case, if you consider it as a modification, you have to provide a patch
for it, and if you make binaries, they have to be QPLed. If you provide it
separatedly, you can chose a more liberal free licence, but you must honor the
upstream request covered by 6c.

> If the word "modify" excludes modifications made by adding stuff then
> I suspect that quite a lot of licences will need reexamination.

Well, my interpretation of "application programs, reusable components and
other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the
Software" is that this applies to third party items, which are not part of the
original modified work.

Friendly,

Sven Luther