Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: New ocaml licence proposal.

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:53:42AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> 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.

Ok, well. But we need to consider non-US law also.

> Since all copyrights flow to the originator, I can't help but see it
> as a fee for making modifications.

Well, even if we see it as such, do we really want to declare this clause as
non-free ? After all it will simplify the administrative tasks involved in
havign upstream integrate changes back, and in general will be a win for free
software.

Notice that the non-freeness involved here, is about the freedom to not
contribute back your changes, is this really something we want to defent ? 

> > > > 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.

debian-legal bait ?  :)))

Notice that i will have to add all this modification in a licence-patch why,
saying : The software is under the QPL, except ..., so the less change is
needed the less confusion it will be. I would much rather keep this one as is,
and concentrate at a later time to the change to another licence altogether,
maybe one of the upcoming CECILL family.

Now, if you could propose a sane and not too involved wording for the above, i
and upstream would consider this. It should not exceed a few (preferably two)
lines though.

Friendly,

Sven Luther