Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:53:42AM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > Forgot to add debian-legal to CC, done now.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:43:45AM +0100, luther wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:03:05PM +0200, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote:
> > > > Package: ocaml
> > > > Version: 3.07.2a-2
> > > > Severity: serious
> > > >
> > > > While looking for the invalid `if' form in caml-types.el, I
> > > > noticed that the Emacs Lisp files of OCaml are "distributed under
> > > > the terms of the Q Public License version 1.0". According to
> > > > <http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200211/msg00217.html>,
> > > > RMS thinks "that a program that uses Emacs facilities needs to
> > > > be GPL-covered".
> > >
> > > O, bother.
> > >
> > > > If RMS is right about this, then it would seem that these files
> > > > cannot be distributed.
> > >
> > > if RMS is right, then i will ask upstream to modify their licence, after
> > > all i am in good enough relation with them that i have other means of
> > > solving this kind of issues than the threat to remove stuff.
> > >
> > > But let's first ask debian-legal about this.
> > >
> > > Debian-legal, can you give me advice about this issue, so i can go to
> > > upstream with informed opinions and legal theory ?
> > >
> > > I have some doubts about this, since th GPL is all about distribution,
> > > not use, and since we distribute the .el in source form and have them
> > > compiled on the users system, and the actual linking only occurs at use
> > > time, there is no way a GPL distribution restriction should apply.
Ok, i contacted upstream, and at least some of the authors have
expressed an interest in changing licence. Some questions have come up
though.
There were proposals to use the LGPL (already the licence of the ocaml
runtime, except a small modification like the one gcc uses), or a dual
LGPL + QPL licencing. Would the LGPL be ok in the case of emacs .el
files, or is there a problem with that ?
The dual licencing is, i think, to cover the case where in the future a
non-GPLed emacs clone would spring forth and could thus use these .el
without having to go to all the trouble to asking every author of every
modification to agree to modify its licence for it.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: