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> writes:
> 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.
That's great news. It's good to see that the predictions of ridicule
from upstream didn't pan out.
> The problems concerning QPL 3 remain, but consensus about it has been much
> more dubious, 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.
I can't imagine you'd advocate leaving other serious bugs to revisit
at a later time when you have more time.
The problems with QPL 3 remain. The issue isn't the particular
license you're obliged to grant the initial developer -- if you had to
grant him a GPL-style license, that would be just as bad. The
difficulty is that you *can't* distribute to the initial developer
under the same license under which you received the software. He
always gets "a non-exclusive royalty-free right ... to distribute your
modification in future versions of the Software provided such
versions remain available under these terms in addition to any
other license(s) of the initial developer"
In particular, he's not bound by QPL 3, which would require him to
only use patches, or by QPL 4, which would compel him to provide
source.
Here's a suggestion for a Free alternative for 3b:
When you distribute modifications you make to this Software, a
non-exclusive royalty-free license is granted to the initial developer
of the Software identical to that you received from the initial
developer --- that is, as embodied in this license document.
That gives INRIA/Cristal all the privileges they need to maintain the master
copy of Ocaml. Oh, but they also want to distribute a copy under a
different license. Hm. How about this extra paragraph 3c:
Without impact on the terms of this license, the initial developer
notifies you that he will take all patches tagged with the phrase
"OK for use in proprietary version", as well as all patches sent by
their authors to
"for_the_proprietary_version@ocaml.cristal.inria.fr.eu" as licensed
to him under a more permissive license. Specifically, he will
interpret any such tag or submission as a royalty-free non-exclusive
grant of a right to distribute your modification in future versions
of the Software provided such versions remain available under these
terms in addition to any other license(s) of the initial developer.
There. Now it's Free, and I think it would get INRIA/Cristal
everything they actually want. It should be trivial to rewrite the
above as a patch onto the QPL, since its text is sacred to the Troll
gods. It could be improved by removing the tag I used, and replacing
it with an explicit grant.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen
bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: