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

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

On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 09:32:01AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>:
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> And the first option may be sufficient for DFSG-freedom.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Then you're agreeing with me. The first way (QPL 3) is on the face of
> it very restrictive compared with the second way (QPL 6) - as you say,
> you have to QPL the whole thing - but if the first way is free, then
> the licence is free, and if the first way isn't free, then the licence
> isn't free, or at least that's the point of view I'm trying to argue
> for in this subthread.

No, because there are software which you cannot distribute under the QPL 3,
and fall only under the QPL 6. In the Qt case, you can't in any way argue that
KDE is a modified work of Qt, and thus distribute the whole of it as part of
the Qt tarball, can you ?

> > original modified work.
> 
> (The "original modified work" is almost as good as granting additional
> restrictions. I think we should do a new licence using both those
> expressions!)

He. modified original work it should have said.

I have reason to believe that this issue will be solved soon, and that we only
need to concentrate on the QPL 3 now. Let's do this, ok ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther