Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Walter Landry <email@example.com>:
> > > The problems concerning QPL 3 remain,
> > Not so great.
> > > but consensus about it has been much more dubious,
> > I haven't seen anyone seriously dispute my analysis in
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01705.html
> I'm not convinced that QPL 3 makes it non-free. Of course I don't like
> QPL 3, so don't expect me to spend much time arguing for it, but I
> have mentioned it a few times. For example:
> I don't see a clear qualitative distinction between the licensing
> required by QPL 3 and the licensing required by the GPL, for example,
> that makes one a "fee" but not the other.
I would argue that the fee required by the GPL has been grandfathered
in by DFSG #10. That is why so many people argue about whether the
GPL is really free. The fee required by QPL 3b is a whole different
animal. It is a much more generous grant that only goes to the
original developer. That sort of far reaching fee has no precedent in