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 09:38:24PM +1000, Matthew Palmer 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:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > 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 really wish you'd stop pushing this barrel, because I have to keep
> swatting it down.

Well, it would be an interpetation that if followed would make people think
two times before licencing stuff under the QPL.

> The initial developer does not have to abide by the terms of the QPL with
> regard to your changes, because he received an all-permissive licence to
> them.

It says :

   b. When modifications to the Software are released under this
      license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the
      initial developer of the Software to distribute your
      modification in future versions of the Software provided such
      versions remain available under these terms in addition to any
      other license(s) of the initial developer.

So, i don't see here an "all-permisive" licence. Just that they have the right
to use the patch as part of future versions of the Software, provided it is
under the QPL and some other licence. Nowhere do i see there that the initial
developer has the right to ignore the QPL licence which covers the patch, and
thus he is evidently bound by it. He still has the right to relicence it and
distribute it though, agreed, but that doesn't mean he has the right to not respect the
licence of the modificator, does it ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther