Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: New ocaml licence proposal.
Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 05:53:14AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > > So this solves most of the issues, and we need to go through the QPL
> > > 3b again, but upstream feels it is a reasonable clause, and would
> > > like to keep it.
> >
> > I'm sure that anyone would love to have that kind of term in a
> > license. It still feels non-free to me.
>
> Sure, but there is much less consensus about this one, so if a handfull of
> people feel it is non-free, i doubt it will come into play.
I would consider it a fee. It is even enshrined in US copyright law [1]
The term "financial gain" includes receipt, or expectation
of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other
copyrighted works.
Since all copyrights flow to the originator, I can't help but see it
as a fee for making modifications.
> > > Also the first modification, well, i am not overly confident that it
> > > is really needed, and i am sure my wording of it are abysmal, and i
> > > ask for some help here in finding some nice and concise wording
> > > which doesn't divert to much from the original. The old wording was :
> > >
> > > a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices
> > > in the Software.
> > >
> > > And i changed it to :
> > >
> > > a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices
> > > in the Software except by adding new authors.
> >
> > If I'm converting an interactive program to be non-interactive, I
> > still can't remove a hard-coded copyright string that pops up in an
> > "About" box.
>
> Bah. I doubt this is what was meant here, and i doubt this is going to be a
> problem all over.
If you don't think that is what is meant, then change the wording to
say that (preferably, remove it). Otherwise it is just lawyerbait.
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
[1] http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101
Reply to: