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> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 10:36:22PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Great!
> >
> > > The problems concerning QPL 3 remain,
> >
> > Not so great.
> >
> > > but consensus about it has been much more dubious,
> >
> > I haven't seen anyone seriously dispute my analysis in
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01705.html
> >
> > that there is a fee involved (you questioned whether it was an
> > acceptable fee, not whether it was a fee at all). Matthew Palmer
>
> Bah, i am just sick to deal with this.
You are free to move ocaml to non-free if you don't want to deal with
legal issues anymore.
> As said, my proposal is to go with this for now, and concentrate on
> the sarge release, and work on it more later, when patience for
> legal haggling has built up again.
>
> > mentioned it again here
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01739.html
> >
> > and there was no response. I also mentioned it here
>
> Probably because everyone is bored with the issue though.
>
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/msg00131.html
> >
> > Unless someone comes up with something now, the argument looks pretty
> > clear.
>
> Well, whatever. I still don't understand how the freedom you claim
> is denied by this clause is a problem for the free/open/whatever
> world, at the contrary, it is probably a benefit.
I fail to see how requiring modifiers to contribute to proprietary
software helps free software.
But that still doesn't address the central point, that the license
requires a fee for modifications.
> > > 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.
> >
> > Getting DFSG-freeness issues fixed is just as important as technical
> > fixes.
>
> Yes, but it is not as fun, at least for me, and i already lost
> enough time for now with this whole issue. The main problem is fixed
> now, and not everyone agrees that this is indeed a problem, so let's
> leave this for a future second round, so you can all go back to
> declare the MIT/X licence non-free or some other such non-sense :).
You have to fix all of the problems. Not just the ones that you have
time for.
> > > Also, as said, it would be more constructive to let this be today, and come
> > > back once upstream is deciding to change licence completely, which may well
> > > happen in the next year or so, in followup to the CECILL licencing move.
> >
> > Since it sounds like the ocaml authors are not interested in
> > completely fixing their license any time soon, it shouldn't be in
> > main. If they change, and if the license is ok, then it can go into
> > main.
>
> Ok, you want to go for a second round of complete abuse here ? I have still
> not agreed that both the QPL 6c and the choice of venue clause are really
> non-free, and posts like Brian's about the MIT/X licence non-freeness clearly
> show the lack of seriousness in some if not most debian-legal position.
>
> > > Finally, i think that we have a general problem with the upstream
> > > can use contribution in a proprietary way, since other packages seem
> > > to be affected by this also.
> >
> > Please list those packages. I don't know of any others.
>
> Please go ahead and do your hand work. Just because there is QPL
> marked on the ocaml package makes it an easy pick. But i recently
> read of some major package licencing issues which allowed for
> proprietary modifications, i think it was mozilla related, where
> upstream no only was allowed to make modifications proprietary, but
> they will only take back modification if you assign the copyright to
> them, which is probably more unacceptable and harmfull, than the QPL
> 3b clause, and you seem to have no problem in accepting this kind of
> practices, or let's kick mozilla from main, in addition to X and
> most of the BSD stuff, should we ?
My guess is that you're talking about the problems with the MPL.
Since there is an active relicensing effort going on, I don't see a
need to throw out Mozilla just yet. Ocaml, on the other hand, does
not even acknowledge all of the problems with the license.
> Firendly,
^^^^
Freudian slip? ;)
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
Reply to: