Ok, again i repost here my conclusions about the current state of the QPL as seen in the ocaml case :
In conclusion, there may be only two points at discussion here, which cast some doubt about the DFSG-freeness of the QPL as applied to ocaml : 1) Do we consider the right to include modifications of patches also distributed as binaries under the QPL and the right for the upstream author to buy software linked with the QPLed work a royalty or fee, thus breaking the DFSG #1. I would argue against it, since the cose to the modificator is nil. 2) Is the cost induced by hiring a non local lawyer for a court action over doing the same locally enough to make use consider addding a new DFSG guideline to prohibit such a think. And will this not be a free check to licence violators ? Please continue arguing about those in this subthread. Friendly, Sven Luther
