Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into
> the ocaml 3.08.1 release, which is scheduled for inclusion in sarge.
> As said previously, it fixes the clause of venue problem, and the
> clause QPL 6c problem.
Great!
> The problems concerning QPL 3 remain,
Not so great.
> but consensus about it has been much more dubious,
I haven't seen anyone seriously dispute my analysis in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01705.html
that there is a fee involved (you questioned whether it was an
acceptable fee, not whether it was a fee at all). Matthew Palmer
mentioned it again here
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01739.html
and there was no response. I also mentioned it here
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/msg00131.html
Unless someone comes up with something now, the argument looks pretty
clear.
> so i propose we let it be right now, and revisit it maybe at a later
> time, as i don't really have time for another monster debian-legal
> flamewar, and am more busy getting my packages ready for the sarge
> release than nit picking here.
Getting DFSG-freeness issues fixed is just as important as technical
fixes.
> Also, as said, it would be more constructive to let this be today, and come
> back once upstream is deciding to change licence completely, which may well
> happen in the next year or so, in followup to the CECILL licencing move.
Since it sounds like the ocaml authors are not interested in
completely fixing their license any time soon, it shouldn't be in
main. If they change, and if the license is ok, then it can go into
main.
> Finally, i think that we have a general problem with the upstream
> can use contribution in a proprietary way, since other packages seem
> to be affected by this also.
Please list those packages. I don't know of any others.
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
Reply to: