Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> > Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >> The addition of the list of licenses was a direct result of Ray
> >> Dassen suggesting that a list of licenses we considered free be
> >> added. I can find no suggestion that the GPL would otherwise be
> >> considered non-free.
> >
> > Raul provided links to statements that the Artistic license is not
> > free.
>
> He provided a link to one from ESR. At the time, ESR was engaged in a
> bitter argument over the freeness of ncurses. It had been forked without
> his permission, and he wanted to tighten the license to prevent that
> from happening again. Debian weren't too keen on that. It's a point used
> in an argument, rather than a firmly held opinion.
Hmm. Reading it more closely, I think that ESR was just blowing
smoke. I will have to concede this point to you, especially since I
don't have access to -private.
> >> People are suggesting that copyleft licenses are only free because of
> >> DFSG 10.
> >
> > My position is that there is a clear reading of the DFSG that keeps
> > the GPL out. However, if you interpret the word "fee" in a strange
> > way, then you can keep the GPL in. DFSG #10 forces that
> > interpretation. So other copyleft licenses are also ok. However,
> > that kind of munging is a very different beast from what would be
> > required to make QPL 3b ok.
>
> That doesn't really work, though. In other cases, the fudges to make it
> clear that licenses are free occur in the first 9 clauses. The artistic
> license is free because of DFSG 1's phrasing, not because it's
> explicitly listed in DFSG 10.
I think we're just going to have to disagree on this point. When I
read DFSG #1 in a straightforward manner, I don't find that copyleft's
are allowed. It is only because of DFSG #10 and that a good fraction
of Debian is based on GPL'd software that I can contort DFSG #1 to
allow it.
> >> Are you honestly suggesting that it is the intention of the DFSG to
> >> draw the line of freedom in such a way that the GPL falls outside
> >> it, and that the GPL is only accepted for pragmatic reasons?
> >
> > I would say that the DFSG uses imprecise language. DFSG #10 enforces
> > a particular interpretation of the language. That is, DFSG #1 does
> > not really mean _no_ fee, just not certain types of fees.
>
> Right. And, inevitably, it's left up to Debian to interpret what is
> meant by "fee". I don't think it's obvious that QPL 3b is more of a fee
> than some of the GPL's requirements. Other people's opinions differ.
I don't see how they are similar. For historical context, at the time
Jim Pick certainly thought it was a problem [1], although Bruce Perens
thought it was fine [2].
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1997/06/msg00191.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1997/06/msg00190.html
Reply to: