QPL is usually considered free, but its use is discouraged. An
additional exception, as granted by OCaml for example, can improve
things.
Even though the license says this:
"You must ensure that all recipients of the machine-executable forms
are also able to receive the complete machine-readable source code to
the distributed Software, including all modifications, without any
charge beyond the costs of data transfer, and place prominent notices
in the distribution explaining this."
Is this not similar to placing a restriction that binary distribution
must be at no cost, or something similar? Is it OK in this case
beacuse it only mandates that access to the source must be at no cost?
I know that this OK in the case of Debian distributing the source,
since there is no charge for people to access the mirrors, but I
don't see how this complies with DFSG #1. If I want to sell someone
a QPL program, I can only sell the binary and must give away the source.
So is the source not part of the program for the purposes of DFSG #1?
I don't mean to be belligerent. I just want to make sure I understand.