Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 04:56:02AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:25:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:28:16AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> (As an aside, I think this particular example was incorrect; he can't
> use the GPL, since it would conflict with the "provided such versions
> remain available under these terms ..." stipulation, but the general
> example holds.)
>
> > But if upstreqm incorporqtes your changes, thus creating a modification of
> > your QPLed work, you have the same right as he has, don't you ?
>
> Nope. Under QPL#3, I can only distribute my changes as patch files; I
> can't distribute the work with my changes incorporated. However, the
> original author can, since I'm required to give him special permission
> to do so under QPL#3b.
As others using your code have to give you special permission, so ...
> I believe this extra permission violates DFSG#3. I can't release my
> changes under the terms I received; I have to make a special additional
> license grant, granting the original author permissions to my work that
> he explicitly denied me to his.
I am not 100 % convinced of this being the case, but even if it where, sure,
there is a disymetry here, but then there is a disymetry anyway, since
upstream wrote most of the code, and you only provide a small patch, and use
it.
Now, you may claim that the patch may be more significant than the original
code, or equaly so. But then, in this case, it would be argued which of those
correspond to a derived work of the other. My position is that each one is a
derived work of the other, each being QPLed, and so each get the same licence
and the same benefit, in particular your right to claim upstream's code is a
derived work of your own stuff, and can thus be incorportated in your own code
base, provided upstream incorporate your work.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: