Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:

>> > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:19:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>
>> >> Please cite relevant text from the GPL.
>
>> Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
>> > Section 9.
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 04:40:25PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> I don't see anything in there about the FSF replacing my license to
>> Emacs 21 with something else.  The part which binds me, instead of the
>> FSF, is this:
>> 
>>   Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the
>>   Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to
>>   it and "any later version", you have the option of following the
>>   terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version
>>   published by the Free Software Foundation.  If the Program does not
>>   specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version
>>   ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
>> 
>> So I have Emacs under version 2 or any later version.  I don't want
>> any later version right now, so I'll take it under GPL v2 for the
>> forseeable future.  Where's the bit where the FSF can replace my
>> license?
>
> What's your role here?  Are you the copyright holder, a developer of
> some change or some downstream user?
>
> Let's imagine that you're not the copyright holder, but that instead
> you're the developer who submits some change.  Let's also imagine that
> the change goes into some debian package which is distributed as a part of
> main.  For added fun, let's imagine that the package in question is gcc,
> and let's imagine that someone at the FSF has downloaded the software
> in question from a debian mirror.  [I hope none of these assumptions
> seem particularly outrageous.]
>
> Now, it's true that there is no version 3 of the gpl right now.  So here's
> where we get into completely hypothetical land:
>
> The FSF could release a GPL version 3 which has completely arbitrary
> terms.  If control of the FSF had passed to someone unscrupulous, these
> terms might be proprietary.  [I'm not saying this is a likely scenario,
> just a possible one -- I hope this hypothesis seems particularly
> outrageous.]

This is where you lose me.  The FSF releases their GPL v3, which is
suspiciously similar to a Microsoft EULA.  Now what?  The change I
submitted, which is distributed with GCC, is licensed only under GPL
v2.

> Anyways, that's something only the FSF can do with gcc licensing --
> no one else can.

Well, yes, but it's *their software*.  They are the sole copyright
holder on GNU GCC -- I can distribute a modified version which is not
GNU GCC, and those modifications can be under, for example, GNU GPL
v2.  And then the FSF can't do anything scary to me.

> More simply, I'm asserting that the QPL relicense clause is similar in
> spirit (though not in implementation) to section 9 of the GPL.

I'm not compelled to give the FSF the privilege of changing licenses
on me, which is the critical difference.  I might choose to do so, but
I don't have to do so, even on works where the primary copyright is
owned by the FSF and they distribute it under a "GPL v2, or at your
option any later version" license.

The lack of compulsion is critical.  The FSF approach gives users and
modifiers more freedom.  The QPL approach demands more from users and
modifiers for INRIA.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu