Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: New ocaml licence proposal.
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:38:58PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 09:23:11 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > Now, what would be your ground for the original author not respecting
> > the QPL of the patch ?
>
> I think that the initial developer does not have to comply with the QPL
> of the patch, because he/she already has the rights he/she needs (the
> right to integrate the patch in future versions of the Original Software
> and the right to distribute them under any other license as long as they
> remain available under the QPL too).
>
> > He is allowed to apply its proprietary licence,
> > as long as he also adds the patch to the QPLed version, thus allowing
> > you the same rigths under the QPL back ?
>
> Let's look at the QPL license under which my hypothetical patch is
> distributed.
> Who is the "initial developer" in this instance of the QPL license?
> Is it me? I don't think so: I'm not the initial developer of the
> Software, I'm just a contributor, because I created a derived work of
> the Software.
> Hence (if it's true that I'm *not* the initial developer, not even for
> the QPL applied to the patch), I don't get any special right from
> further modifiers that must comply with the QPL: the true initial
> developer gets it!
I don't think you can go this way, since the QPL insists on patches that are
separate from the original work, then these standalone patches can as well be
applied to some other software (well, there are other kind of separate
distribution than just patches), and thus the upstream author has to live by
the same rules when he integrates your patches, and thus create a derived work
from your patches.
> If this is correct, I don't get any special right from the initial
> developer, even if he/she must comply with the QPL of the patch...
Whyever not ?
> > > Again: IMHO this does not satisfy DFSG 3.
> >
> > The DFSG #3 says :
> >
> > The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
> > allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of
> > the original software.
> >
> > The point at hand is : "to be distributed under the same terms as the
> > license of the original software.".
> >
> > Since nothing is stopping you from releasing your patches under the
> > QPL, i don't see what the problem is.
>
> My reasoning is: I modify a QPL'd software and thus create a patch.
> I want to distribute the patch under the QPL to the initial developer.
> DFSG #3 says that I must be allowed to do this, otherwise the QPL'd
> software is not DFSG-free.
So ?
> But I'm not allowed to, because the QPL forces me to grant additional
> permissions to the initial developer.
But by integrating the patch, he gives you the same kind of rights, so ...
> As a consequence, the QPL'd software is not DFSG-free.
I am still not convinced.
> P.S.: no need to Cc me as I'm a debian-legal subscriber...
Done.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: