Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:53:42AM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Forgot to add debian-legal to CC, done now.
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:43:45AM +0100, luther wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:03:05PM +0200, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote:
> > > > Package: ocaml
> > > > Version: 3.07.2a-2
> > > > Severity: serious
> > > >
> > > > While looking for the invalid `if' form in caml-types.el, I
> > > > noticed that the Emacs Lisp files of OCaml are "distributed under
> > > > the terms of the Q Public License version 1.0". According to
> > > > <http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200211/msg00217.html>,
> > > > RMS thinks "that a program that uses Emacs facilities needs to
> > > > be GPL-covered".
> > >
> > > O, bother.
> > >
> > > > If RMS is right about this, then it would seem that these files
> > > > cannot be distributed.
> > >
> > > if RMS is right, then i will ask upstream to modify their licence, after
> > > all i am in good enough relation with them that i have other means of
> > > solving this kind of issues than the threat to remove stuff.
> > >
> > > But let's first ask debian-legal about this.
> > >
> > > Debian-legal, can you give me advice about this issue, so i can go to
> > > upstream with informed opinions and legal theory ?
> > >
> > > I have some doubts about this, since th GPL is all about distribution,
> > > not use, and since we distribute the .el in source form and have them
> > > compiled on the users system, and the actual linking only occurs at use
> > > time, there is no way a GPL distribution restriction should apply.
> DFSG #2:
> The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
> source code as well as compiled form.
But we don't do distribute compiled forms, and it doesn't really make
sense to do so.
> It sounds like we can't distribute compiled forms. You could put this
> in non-free, since we can distribute the source. In that case, I am
Ah, but we are going to remove non-free anyway, so i clearly won't do
> uncertain about whether you should disable the automatic generation of
> .elc files.
Why ? We clearly are not violating the GPL by doing so, so where is the
> So I think talking to the upstream is a good idea.
Sure, but on more serious ground than this. Notice that the bugreport
claims that RMS thinks that ..., not that it is actually true.
He also thinks that GNU documentation is free, which we don't, so i
clearly would like to have a more solid case before i go to upstream