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

[Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>]

> * Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> [040826 01:32]:
> > You need to release your changes under the same terms you received the
> > Program, or you lose your rights to distribute the Program.

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:59:30AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> Which is GPL v2, nothing else.

GPL v2 includes section 9.

The terms in section 9 do not offer distributors the option
of avoiding future versions of the GPL.

So either:

[a] You are ignorant of the terms of the license, and "nothing
else" has no meaning, or

[b] You are trying to distribute under terms more restrictive
than that of GPL v2.

Which is it?

> When I receive a program dual licenced
> under GPL and BSD, I can choose which I want to use. Given your
> argumentation I would keep BSD and apply it to my changes...

BSD does not include GPL section 9.  On the other hand, BSD also does
not include GPL's restriction against further restrictions.  So, BSD
already lets anyone rerelease under Apple's proprietary license.

Then again, this is not assymetric for some users -- anyone can make it
proprietary, not just a limited few.

> > Nothing prevents you from releasing under GPL v2, as long as you haven't
> > removed any rights granted in the license.  Among those rights are some
> > rights to instead use some potential alternate versions of the GPL.
> 
> Well, first of all, the exact term is "add futher restrictions". And I
> do not add further restrictions, but simply only remove the "or any
> later version" part for my derived work.

That's a restriction on releasing under later versions.

> Thus all requirements keep the 
> same, even section 9. (Though it is mostly a no-op as there is written
> no "any later version" in it).

The license requires everyone to release the software under the same terms
as they received it.  This doesn't just mean the terms of sections 0,
1, 2 and 3.  It means for all terms in the license.

The problem here is that you're trying to release the software under
terms not offered in section 9.  That's a copyright restriction that
you're not authorized to make.

You seem to really think that you, as someone other than the copyright
holder, have the right to either

[a] change the terms of the license, to be more restrictive than that
you received it under, and which are not included in the license, or

[b] incorporate a patch which has more restrictive terms than that you
received it under, and which are not included in the license.

I'm guessing it's [b], but I only see you asserting this, not providing
any legal reasoning that this is the case.

Maybe you think that sections 0..3 have some special significance under
copyright law such that they are "copyright terms" while some of
the other sections "aren't really copyright terms"?  If so, please
provide a specific reference to the law in question.

> This section simply allows the copyright holder to make some easy
> statement like "GPL v2 or any later version", which needs to be defined
> and the licence text defines it.

I'll agree that it allows the copyright holder to make such statements.

I don't agree that it allows non-copyright holders to make 
statements not included in the license.

I don't know whether it allows non-copyright holders to change between
the two offered statements.

> > My claim is that you are not allowed to distribute GPLed software under
> > terms more restrictive than those present in the GPL.
> 
> Well, that is correct. But I do not change the terms of the GPL at all,
> if I do not allow the "any later version" to my changes. They are not
> part of the GPL. GPL only defines what this "any later version" means.

The copyright license provides for two cases.  In one, the program is
licensed for any specific gpl version or any later version.  In another,
the program is not licensed for any specific gpl version and any gpl
version may be used.

You're asserting that section 9 is a "definition" and not a "term" of
the license, but I don't see any legal justification for this assertion.

You could even call it a "definition of terms" -- that might make
the concept clearer.

> > The GPL doesn't grant you the right to distribute gcc in a fashion where
> > users of your modified version have any fewer permissions under copyright
> > than you.
> 
> Wrong. When you modify e.g. gcc, you will almost always have more 
> permissions than the people you gave it, too. You are the copyright
> holder of your changes.

I was talking about permissions to gcc.

It's true that you have more rights to your patch, when it's considered
seperately.  [Unless, that is, you've entered into some contract to give
up your rights.]

> If you incorporate some of your code that is
> copyrightable on it's own, you can licence that part under any
> other licence you want. Even if the changes were in a form that you
> had to follow the gcc licence in what licence you give them away,
> you still have the right to put them under some other licence as soon
> as you get gcc under some other licence.

Sure.

> Noone you give your modified form to will have this rights normaly.

Of course.

Well, not with the GPL...

... with other free licenses (such as BSD), it's normal for others to
have this right.  [And, once they've exercised that right, you might
lose your right to derivatives of your work -- which might or might not
matter to you, depending on how significant your work was.]

> > I'll agree that if section 9 were not included in the terms of "this
> > license" that you wouldn't have this requirement.  But I've not seen
> > you offer any reason to believe that the terms of section 9 are not a
> > part of the terms of "this license".
> 
> Nobody speaks against section 9 beeing part of the GPL. The "any later
> version" is not part of the GPL.

These two sentences contradict each other:

"any later version" ia a part of section 9.

-- 
Raul