Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, luther@debian.org wrote:
Geez.
>> 1) be able to take other people's modifications proprietary. That's fine
>> for them, it's just non-free for us.
>
> Oh, ok. do we have a consensus on that ? could you point out why in clear
> points of the DFSG, and not some far fetched and controversed island paradise
> metahpors. Notice that the FSF doesn't seem toi think so, and it would make
> the BSD non-free, would it not ?
I think there's a clear consensus that that's non-free, as it's a
substantial cost imposed on those distributing modifications. It is a
fee. Normally, I distribute my software under copyleft. If somebody
wants to do something proprietary with it, they must pay me a lot of
money. INRIA wants to pay my instead with a license to distribute
modifications to their software. Clearly, the license I'm giving them
under QPL 3(b) is a fee.
>> OR
>>
>> 2) Wants to be able to relicence OCaml to others under a proprietary licence
>> for a fee, in order to fund further development. That's even finer, and can
>> be done by either writing it all themselves (and hence having nobody else's
>> licence to worry about), or getting copyright assignments or
>> totally-permissive grants from everyone whose contributions they incorporate
>> into OCaml.
>
> Well, sure. or maintaining a dual tree, which is a pain. Remember, the ocaml
> team is at best 6 or so people, without legal advisories (i was told some year
> back that the INRIA legal council is a joke with regard to that kind of
> stuff).
They need not maintain a dual tree -- just not integrate into their
tree work which they don't have the license to use as they wish. That
means they probably don't get my modifications, because I will only
give my modifications to INRIA under a copyleft.
> Well, anyway, ... Ok, i will follow advice, and start a new thread. abotu this
> whole mess.
>
>> 1) is non-free, no matter what licence they use. 2) doesn't require the QPL
>> (which I feel is non-free for a variety of reasons).
>
> Ah, and the FSF strongly encouraging me to give them copyright of any
> contribution to an FSF project is not ?
That's right. The FSF won't distribute your work unless you give them
copyright. That's fine. They give you a free license to distribute
your work -- modifications to their work -- as you please. That they
also happen to want donations of money, time, and programs is not non-free.
> But was fine three years ago when they chose it, and this had some influence
> about their chosing of it. What thrust will they have in our decisions if we
> don't stand by it, especially as i am sure most people participating in this
> have not read previous threads about this issue ?
And we thought their software had no RC bugs three years ago. What
trust should we have in them to write releasable, bug-free code?
There are bugs in licenses, just like bugs in code. Sometimes they
take a while to find.
> How would you have reacted if someone came with a bug report out of nothing
> like Brian did, without pointing to this discussion,
You already have mail from me -- now weeks old -- explaining that I
wasn't aware of this discussion; I read the license file for ocaml
before modifying it, and was horrified to see a clearly non-free
license there. So I filed a bug.
As a Debian user, I read the DFSG and expected I'd be able to exercise
those rights with respect to Debian-shipped software. That I can't do
so with respect to ocaml is a serious bug. If I'd treated that as
free software and made the modifications I want, I'd have been put in
a position of violating the QPL or violating other contracts.
So, as it happens, I'm working with PLT Scheme, an LGPL'd compiler,
instead. Niiice code, too.
> And Brian was not really tactfull either.
> Well, if i have been offensive and rude to an email which was constructive i
> apologize for it. for the rest, well i have been under Branden's english and
> discuss things in email school, so what do you expect. And any rude language i
> use here, i did learn on debian mailing lists.
>> You are aware that Brian !== Brian? Brian Thomas Sniffen, your primary
>> combatant in this thread, is not Brian M. Carlson, the author of the snippet
>> you quoted above?
>
> Oh .... , well, i am really sorry about this. and i apologize to Brian about this
> confusion. shame on me for not noticing ... but then it is hard to notice such
> details after many hundred of emails.
Of course. It's easy to get confused when facing so much traffic.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: