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

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

On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 09:51:42PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 05:53:14 -0400 (EDT) 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.
> 
> Agreed: I'm another one who feels that QPL 3b is non-free.
> 
> It forces me to grant to the initial developer more rights to my code
> than he/she granted me to his/her own code.

Easy, you place your patch under the QPL, and then if upstream applies the
patch, he clearly makes a modification of your work, and gives you the same
right back with regard of the original software, so it is not non-free, but
not really what upstream expected in the first place.

> I feel that this does not satisfy DFSG 3, because I'm allowed to
> distribute my modifications "under the same terms as the license of the
> original software" to anyone I like *but* to the initial developer.

See above.

> The initial developer automatically gets a more permissive license grant
> for my modifications...

But shall he apply your QPLed patch, you get the same right as he.

Friendly,

Sven Luther