Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>
>> > Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> >> Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>> >>> Why is granting of extra freedoms non-free?
>> >>
>> >> It isn't. The part of my message that you snipped made clear that
>> >> it's the requirement that I must grant extra permissions which is
>> >> non-free.
>> >
>> > What is the difference between granting of extra permissions and
>> > granting of extra freedoms?
>>
>> Nothing. Therefore, I require you to grant me a permissive license to
>> all code you have ever written.
>>
>> Oh wait, that doesn't seem free to you? Why? Because it's a
>> requirement. What's the difference between charity and tax? Tax is a
>> requirement, charity is freely given.
>
> Although certain varieties of logical fallacy[1] are popular on this
> list, please try to engage less in hyperbole and more in arguments
> that believably relate to software. Ideally arguments will clearly
> relate to actual licenses on software under discussion.
Look, Matthew's been repeatedly failing to recognize the difference
between a grant of permission and a requirement for a grant of
permission. I'm trying to make the difference as clear as possible,
and to emphasize why the requirement is non-Free.
While it's true that arguments will ideally refer to actual licenses
on software under discussion, sometimes it's easiest to see a feature,
whether problem or virtue, when it's shown in clear relief. For
example, a license which was essentially "GPL, but replace the phrase
"this License" in GPL 2b with "the MIT/X11 license"" would be
non-Free for violating DFSG 3.
The QPL's 3b is a close relative of that non-Free license. By
imagining that strange copy-not-quite-left, I can clearly demonstrate
the problem with the QPL.
Ideally, arguments will also relate to the messages to which they
purport to respond, not slight variations of those messages which omit
a few words.
-Brian
> Michael Poole
>
> [1]- Fallacies like strawmen arguments, illustrated in your post, are
> members of a group colloquially known as Making Shit Up.
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: