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>]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:56:45PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 01:56:07PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > 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:
> > > > 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 ?
> > > 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
> 
> I think it'd be pretty clear which was which.  Your work was developed as a
> result of what was already provided under the QPL.  The work resulting from

It is not always that clear, imagine two works, A and B, which can integrate
well enough, but each one could be a patch of the other, or vice versa.

> the combination of the original software and your patch is a derived work of
> both, but thankfully the initial developer isn't bound by the terms of the
> QPL because he got an all-permissions, so you've got bupkis.  Similarly, any
> modifications that the original author does to your work don't fall under
> the "modified versions" rule, because the initial developer didn't need to
> accept the QPL to modify your work.

So what ? It is just a patch, no interaction with the original software at
all, unless it is compiled that is.

Now, if you consider those patch as only small piece of modification from the
original software, like, err, the patches they are, then it is only fair to
notice that there is some disymetry of importance between the huge work having
gone in the original software, and the smallish patch you have sent upstream,
and thus it is no wonder that you find this same disymetry in the licence and
attached rights too.

And since in no way does this limit our freedom, there is no harm done anyway.

> > 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.
> 
> The QPL doesn't talk of derived works as such[1], merely modified versions
> of the original software.  Your modification, though it may constitute 90%
> of the resulting codebase, is still a modified version of a QPL'd work.  (In

Well, i have somehow the feeling that this would be something you could go to
court and argue over.

> that case, you'd be nuts not to just rewrite the other 10% and freely
> licence it, but we'll leave that alone for now).  All modifications of a
> QPL'd work have to follow the guidelines in 3b.

But still, the copyright of your patch or modification remains with you,
altough upstream has the right to integrate it, and all persons further
patching it are thus obliged to give you the same right you give upstream, so,
...

Friendly,

Sven Luther