Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.

[Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>]

Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:

> I think you've read "under this license" as meaning that I license my
> modifications to others under the QPL.  I read it rather differently:
> I think that says that if I release modifications, and the license
> which allows me to release them is the QPL, then I must make this grant.
> 
> That is, it's not talking about the license under which my changes are
> available to you, but about the license under which I perform the act
> of releasing: "modifications to the software are released under this
> license"

If I follow your logic right, the condition "Modifications made to
this work must be licensed for unlimited reuse by the original author"
is non-free, but the condition "Modifications made to this work must
be licensed for unlimited reuse by INRIA" is free, since the latter
allows distribution of modifications under the same terms?

While a very literal reading of DFSG 3 may support that distinction, I
think it calls for invoking common sense and the "G is for Guidelines"
argument.

Michael Poole