Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 04:12:44PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> 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.
Well, i still don't agree on the non-freeness of them, but the issue is moot
right now.
> > 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.
Well, sure. between fixing let's say powerpc kernel bugs and some boring
debian-legal stuff of limited interest, my choice is quickly done. Or even
between freeing miboot and continuing this uninteresting thread, ...
> The problems with QPL 3 remain. The issue isn't the particular
The problem with QPL 3 seems to be discussed by 3 debian-legal members, while
others appear satisfied with the licence change. The sarge release will be in
a bit over a month, and will have loads of other legal problems, so i would
much rather go to do real work, instead of losing time here. And also, i
believe that upstream may soon switch to another licence, and i would prefer
to retake this discussion once that happens.
> 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:
Yeah, but since the QPL in itself is hardly modificable, this will get into
another round of patching. Better to let us more time, and discuss with
upstream a change of licence with more time both for them and for me. And i
prefer that upstream work on ocaml 3.08.1 to be released in time for still
being included in sarge with some bug fixes and the mentioned modified
licence, as well as the emacs files under the GPL, than that they loose time
discussing this in haste and maybe make this release too late for the sarge
release schedule.
So, does relenting for this on sarge, and wait for a QPL-like licence of the
CECILL family, make sure it is DFSG-free, and encourage the ocaml upstream to
go for it, seem reasonable ?
Much more reasonable and time efficient than losing time discussing this now,
and then have the licence rechanged 6 month or a year from now.
Anyway my patience for licencing issues is exhausted for the next month or so.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: