Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
pjt33@supanet.com writes:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
>> > Now consider a similar license with one change: only the original
>> > developer may release under a proprietary license. Such a change
>> > reduces the number of people who can take the software proprietary. It
>> > seems like if the case above is a Free license, then this one would be
>> > as well, and would actually be preferable.
>>
>> This is not Free. It gives these grants:
>>
>> 1) Distribute with source, passing this license along.
>>
>> 2) or, if you're Bob, under a proprietary license without source.
>>
>> Now I have only one grant of permission. I have to pass along 2, but
>> I don't get to take advantage of it at all.
>
> Since it was specified that Bob holds the copyright, this licence is equivalent
> to the same licence without clause 2 at all.
No, it's more restrictive on me. Without the requirement that I add
clause 2 to my modifications, Bob can't release *my* code in his
proprietary version. Bob only holds the copyright on his original,
not on my modifications. They are a derivative work of his original,
so both he and I have copyright interests in them.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: