Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: New ocaml licence proposal.

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

On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 09:24:36AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> I'm still confused by section 6 of the modified QPL:
> 
> 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
> software items that link with the original or modified versions of the
> Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following
> requirements:
> 
>       a. You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable
>       forms of these items are also able to receive and use the
>       complete machine-readable source code to the items without any
>       charge beyond the costs of data transfer.
> 
>       b. You must explicitly license all recipients of your items to
>       use and re-distribute original and modified versions of the
>       items in both machine-executable and source code forms. The
>       recipients must be able to do so without any charges whatsoever,
>       and they must be able to re-distribute to anyone they choose.
> 
> As far as I can tell, that means that if I develop something which
> *could* link against ocamlyacc, then when I distribute it I must do so
> under these copyleft terms, even to the extent of ensuring that those
> who receive my code from third parties an get its source from me -- 6a
> says "all recipients" after all.

Well, my reading of this is that if you develop something that links against
ocamlyacc, you have to distribute it under a free licence. These two clauses
are basically Trolltech equivalent wording of our DFSG.

But let's not go into this too deep, there is goodd chance that ocaml will
again change licence to one of the CECILL family once a suitable one has been
released and is considered as DFSG free.

Friendly,

Sven Luther