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

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

On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 10:43:29AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 11:17:47AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > 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.

Yeah, i was just enumerating the conditions that this general statement should
allow to do. What is wrong with that.

So, i guess we need to add : 

  D) any copyright notice shown to the user (as opposed to being attached to
  the actual code), can be removed if the code showing it is also removed.

> > > > 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?

Ah, didn't realize this nuance, sorry. Still, i must then refute your claim. I
said nothing about software that you write from scratch, but only about
modifications that you do to existing free software. It is morally right to
expect you to contribute those changes back to the community, instead of
hoarding them.

> > > 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.

Well, did i say we have to say that a DFSG free licence means that you are
forced to contribute it back upstream ? No, if you don't like the contribute
upstream clause of a licence, then don't use it. The same goes for people who
don't like the give away source to recipient of code clause of the GPL, and
thus don't use GPLed code, only BSDed one. This doesn't make the GPL non-free,
and should also not make this clause of the QPL non-free too.

> > > 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.

So, what is the problem.

> > 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

So ? I suppose you too never write BSDed software ? 

> 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?

You haven't read the difference between selling and not releasing source too.
And nothing is stopping you from selling the QPLed software, is it ? 

> 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.

Well, nothing is stopping you from placing your patches under the QPL, and
thus granting you the same rights as the upstream author, should he integrate
those patches in his software, which would then be a modification of his
patches. I don't know, i believe this is somehow a loophole of the QPL, and i
may misinterpet it. IF you write such a patch, upstream integrate it, you can
then release the whole package as QPL/GPL, right ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther
> 
> </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
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>