Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 11:15:56PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 02:50:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 08:24:30AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > > OK. You believe QPL 3 is free, and you seem to have thought about it
> > > a bunch. So please explain to me how to do the following:
> > >
> > > 1. Modify a QPL'd work.
> > > 2. Because of the license under which I received the material,
> > > distribute patches representing the modifications.
> > > 3. Distribute them to the initial developer under the same license --
> > > that is, without letting him distribute changes to my patches (such
> > > as the application of them to the mainline source) except as
> > > further patches.
> > >
> > > I don't see a way to do that, but DFSG 3 says I should be able to
> > > distribute under the same license.
> >
> > Notice that you can distribute patches under any licence you well please.
>
> As long as it's source-only distribution. That's OK.
>
> > Only binary distribution of them force you to put them under the QPL,
> > which is clearly the same licence as upstream has given you.
>
> Binary distribution forces you to release your modifications under the QPL.
> By the terms of that licence, however, by virtue of the fact that your patch
> is a modification, the initial developer gets an all-permissive licence *in*
> *addition* to the permissions granted to him/her and the rest of the world
> by the QPL.
Yes. Still it is the same licence and upstream adopting your patch then makes
the original work a modified work of your patch, and thus gives you back
exactly the same right. The fact that he can include the QPLed patch into his
proprietary version is moot, since he is also supposed to include it in the
QPLed version, and nowhere is it written that upstream has not to respect the
QPL of the patch in the QPLed version, only that he has right to make it
proprietary as well.
Sure, this is a loophole since it allows for each patch author whose patch has
been accepted upstream, to take the resulting original code + patch, as a
modification of his patch, and to dual release the result under the QPL and
a BSD-like licence, and then to relicence it to anything he likes.
> While the wording is a bit roundabout, and you need to take different bits
> of the licence together to get the whole picture, the end result is that
> source-only distribution *can* be free of extended grants (or not, if you
> choose to licence your modification under the QPL), but binary distribution
> results in an extra permission grant to the initial developer. Which is
> clearly *not* the same licence as the initial developer has given you.
So what ? can you not do the same when upstream adopts your patch and create a
modified work of your patch ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: