Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: New ocaml licence proposal.
On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 11:17:47AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 10:01:42AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 02:31:27PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Let's, then. What does French copyright law define as a fee or financial
> > gain?
Thanks for that great answer there, Sven.
> > > > 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.
> >
> > It's not exactly rocket science to add a "some modifications (C) Foo Wombat"
> > to each file touched by a patch submitted by Foo Wombat. With a decent
> > revision control system it's even straightforward to identify when those
> > changes get written back out again so you can remove the (C) notice.
> >
> > What you're talking about, I believe, is simplifying the ability of
> > upstream to release proprietary versions of the software, requiring no
> > explicit copyright assignment or permission grant. That is a little more
> > difficult to judge as "a win for free software", except in the sense that
> > upstream gets money to continue to develop "free" software. And yet there
> > are no shortage of Free Software projects that have thrived without this
> > clause.
>
> Well, no, you cannot remove the existing copyright statement. Still the clause
> 3 deals with patches, and you can add your own copyright statement. I
> understand there are the following issues at hand here :
>
> A) people need to be able to add themselves to the copyright of files they
> touch.
>
> B) people need to be able to translate copyright statement that appear in
> the about box of an interactive program.
>
> C) if a whole file is removed, then it should be ok to remove the copyright
> statement attached to it.
>
> And that's the extent of it. Since we cannot modify the QPL anyway, would it
> be enough to add an additional ecemption, or maybe simply an upstream
> annotation saying that those are explicitly allowed ? I failed to write some
> nice and concise wording eplaining the above.
Along with the ability to remove copyright statements if they are no longer
relevant (such as converting the above-mentioned About-box-enabled GUI
program into a console-based program, or even better, a non-interactive
program), and other such things. That's why a list of "you can do these
things" rarely suffices -- it doesn't take into account anything that the
licence author didn't think of.
Keeping it general is much better for everyone.
> > > 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 ?
> >
> > Yes. Otherwise we end up with licence clauses requiring that all software
> > you write must be freely licenced and publically distributed as a condition
> > of some piece of software. Not contributing your changes upstream is
>
> And we would accept those as free.
You're joking, right? You would be happy agreeing to a licence which forced
you to place *everything* you write under a Free licence?
> > something you want to protect just as much as your right to not distribute a
> > work under a Free licence in the first place.
>
> That you want to protect, i have no such interest, and i believe many in the
> debian project would feel the same.
I'm happy to put that one to a GR. It would completely screw anyone who
ever writes anything they may not want to share with others. It also stuffs
anyone who has to agree to a "we own everything you do" employment clause.
> > Note that this statement shall not be construed in a way as to discourage
> > copyleft. That is a notice from the original copyright holder saying "if
> > you want to distribute bits of my work, you have to do equivalent things to
> > your work". Compelling even *submission* upstream goes further, and
> > compelling an all-permissive licence to upstream is well beyond the simple
> > "share-alike" provisions of copyleft.
>
> There is no submission upstream required here, just the right of upstream
> to integrate the patches, if he comes to them anyway, into its software.
Yep, that's copyleft.
> And the additional right to have it also integrated in the proprietary
> version of said software, _AS LONG AS_ he also integrate it into the free
> part.
That's not. How happy are you for me to be able to sell the software that
you write, while you are not able to sell the software that I write? Let's
say we collaborate on a piece of software. Would you be willing to sign a
contract saying that I am able to sell the software we write, but you
cannot? Is that *really* what you want to support?
I think that's what really bugs me about the QPL. It treats everyone except
the initial authors as some sort of lower class of person, not valuable
contributors and collaborators as they should. Regardless of whether the
OCaml-amended QPL is judged Free or not, any licence which treats the people
it seeks to grant permissions to as somehow inferior is not a good Free
Software licence.
</soapbox>
> > > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Here's a nice short one:
> >
> > ""
>
> Please, can we start to discuss seriously ?
Thanks for trimming the thoughtful and quite serious section I wrote after
that. And note that what I wrote there is quite serious -- for the reasons
I wrote which, again, you have quite deliberately trimmed. You *don't*
*need* a "don't fuck with my copyrights" clause.
- Matt
Reply to: