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

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> writes:

> 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?

No.  What I'm saying is this:

* Licenses like the BSD/MIT/X11, which allow modifiers to distribute
  their changes under any license, are Free.  Specifically, I can
  distribute my changes with the same permissions and restrictions
  under which I received the license.

* Licenses like the GPL or BSDPL, which allow modifiers to distribute
  their changes only under that same license, are Free.  That is,
  compelling a copyleft is OK.  Compelling a non-copyleft (BSDPL) is
  also OK, if weird.  It's just forcing me to give the same freedoms
  and restrictions I had.

* Uneven licenses, which have multiple distinct free paths, are Free
  as long as there is one Free path.  That is, "BSD to teachers, GPL
  to everyone else" is OK.  If I'm a teacher, I have a free license
  and can distribute my changes under any license I like, including
  the BSD.  If I'm not, I have a Free license, the GPL, and can
  distribute my changes under the GPL, the same license I received.

* Licenses like the QPL, which compel me to give somebody more rights
  to my work than I had to his, are not Free.  They are not compatible
  with DFSG 3.

* Uneven licenses which compel a non-copyleft license grant are also
  not Free.  For example, a license which said "this is BSD to
  teachers, GPL to everybody else, EXCEPT that you must also make your
  work BSD to teachers" is not free.  I didn't have the right to make
  proprietary changes, so compelling me to grant that right to others
  is non-Free.

I think that's a consistent system, well-grounded in the text of the DFSG.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu