Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 09:29:24PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > I don't see how this makes it non-free. You are distributing under the
> > same license you received the software under, so DFSG 3 is satisfied,
But you're not. The license permissions you received don't permit using
the code under a completely difference license; for example, you can't
link the code with GPL work, since the licenses are incompatible. However,
you have to distribute your modifications under terms that *do* allow the
original programmer to do so. The license terms you're forced to release
modifications under are different from the ones you received.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 04:54:03PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> DFSG #5. Discrimination against a person or groups of persons. In this
> case, the group that contains !(initial developer). A common definition of
> discrimination in the sense of exclusion is that exclusion is discrimination
> when it makes the distinction based on an intrinsic quality, rather than
> based on a choice. To take a kroogerism, if we exclude because someone is a
> White Christian Male, that's discrimination, but if we exclude that same
> person because they're being an idiot, that's OK.
The question here: is it free for a license to offer free terms to everyone,
and extra permissions to another group of people (eg. the original author)?
Yes.
If not, for example, this would seem to imply that software under the GPL
with a special exception releasing John Smith from the requirement to release
source would fail.
I think that's clearly silly, because the same effect can be achieved by
giving that individual a separate license. Additional licenses being granted
only to certain people, independently from the one Debian sees, never make
software less free. So, it would seem silly to reject a single license
that combines the effect of this licensing arrangement into one license,
even if using two licenses would be cleaner.
Similarly, an effect roughly like the QPL's could be achieved by dual-
licensing: one license that says "all modifications must be available
under a permissive license", and another that says "all modifications
must be available to the original author under a permissive license".
The first license doesn't fail DFSG#5[1]. Even if the second license
does, we'd still allow the first, and the second would still be available.
(The first license is a sort of subset of the QPL: you can release your
changes to everyone and avoid the problem.)
Rejecting a license because it does this in a single license would be
strange, if it would be allowed in dual-licensing form.
[1] ignoring DFSG#3 for the sake of this separate argument
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: