Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:39:22PM +0100, Edmund Grimley-Evans wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>:
>
> > > I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
> > > secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
> >
> > Well, if they can't abide with the term of the licence, nobody is forcing them
> > to use the software in question.
>
> Of course, but everyone loses if people who might have been able to
> contribute, even in a small way, by identifying bugs, for example,
> find themselves unable to use the software.
Sure, but this doesn'y make it non-free, and it is probably more a problem
from those people's policy than anything else.
> > Compare that if someone has some GPLed
> > software whose otherwise constraints stop you from freely distributing it. It
> > is common knowledge that this means you cannot distribute it at all.
>
> It's surprising, though, how uninterested some people are in licensing
Well, i don't think so, it is mostly a bother, and given the many way people
may try to misinterpret it, and lack of respect shown to the original author
over those issues, i guess it is not at all surprising.
> issues. GNU Prolog used to have a GPL run-time library, and perhaps
> still does. That's quite a limitation, and I'm not sure it's
> deliberate on the part of the author.
Well, but you can hardly claim that this makes the GPL non-free, can you ?
> > > company with 500-100 employees. A lot of what we do is temporarily
> > > confidential, in that we don't want the rest of the world finding out
> > > what we are working on until there is an official announcement. We use
> >
> > So what. if upstream is aware of it enough to make a request, the secret is
> > out anyway,
>
> The fact that the software is being used is presumably not secret, but
> the (modified) source code might contain confidential information.
So, don't distribute it if it is confidential.
> This is somewhat hypothetical, because, as I understand it, ocaml's
> run-time library is released under the LGPL with additional
Yep, exactly. The only case this would happen is if you where to make
modification to the compiler suite itself.
> permissions, so the QPL would not cause any problems for someone who
> just wants to use ocaml for making binaries which they then
> distribute. Nevertheless, it's worth noting that the GPL allows
> something that the QPL does not allow: namely, a limited release of
> software that contains confidential information. For example, it's
Yes, but does this make it non-free ? I have some doubt about that, since many
would argue that the source code itself is confidential, and even releasing it
to your customer or whoever breaks that confidentiality. It is also not a way
the open source community wants to thread.
> possible, I think, that a microprocessor company might want to modify
> GCC to make it handle some new instructions that are highly
> confidential, then release the modified GCC to partners who have
> signed non-disclosure agreements, and publicly announce that they are
> doing this, without revealing details of how the new instructions
> work. I think that's possible with the GPL, but not with the QPL.
So, too bad for them.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: