Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 12:22:38PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> 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.
Sure, whatever. This only proves that debian-legal is not to be thrusted, and
a big time looser. See Brian suggesting we move X out of main and into
non-free. And the release is at hand, there is no time to loose by endulging
in extended flamewar here, which are futile in the hend, so please don't
propose such aberhations.
It would be different if debian-legal could be thrusted, but it can not. What
i see here, is that roughly half of the people who had troubles with the
original problem are more or less satisfied by now, while the other half is
not. What i ask you is to put a stop on this right now, sarge will ship with
load of non-free stuff after all, and let me work on making this and my
remaining packages, including the kernel packages i co-work, ready for sarge.
Or do you prefer i lose another week or two fighting you here and stop all
work on the remaining of my packages ?
> > 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.
Because the proprietary version can only happen if the _SAME_ patch is also
applied to the QPLed version. Also, this clause allow upstream to apply the
patch to his tree without over burdening him to keep two separate trees.
So this means that more patches can be incorporated, and thus the community
benefits from it. The fact that there is a proprietary version which is _THE
SAME_ as the QPLed one, is hardly even noticeable, especially in the ocaml
case, where i doubt there is any significant business going around the
proprietary version.
Now, this is much better than the BSD situation, where any code can be made
proprietary without restrictions, and the BSD is free.
> But that still doesn't address the central point, that the license
> requires a fee for modifications.
Whatever.
> > > > 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.
There is no concensus that this is indeed a problem, as this thread has shown,
so ...
And if you are so interested in fixing problems, please go ahead and fix the
GFDL mess and stop bothering me and let me do real work.
And BTW, i still don't agree that all the issues that upstream agreed to waive
where indeed real problems. Inconveniences, yes, but not problems.
> > > > 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.
And ? Did i not say that the ocaml team was considering moving the licence to
the little brother of the CECILL family ? And that we should postpone the
debate right now until those are released, and upstream is ready to make the
change, probably for the next version. I even provided the link and quoted
upstream on this two times here, but nobody seems to have cared.
So, what gain is there to fight over this now, and do another round of ugly
patching to the QPL, while we could keep our strength for when there is a real
gain, especially if the licence will change anyway, probably next year or so.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: