Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: New ocaml licence proposal.
Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> Ok, after a first contact with upstream, there seems to be some informal
> agreement to modify the ocaml licence to the following text :
>
> http://svn.debian.org/viewcvs/pkg-ocaml-maint/packages/ocaml/copyright?view=markup&rev=502
That's great news!
> Changes are :
>
> a) Modified clause 3a to allow for adding authors to and translation of
> copyright notices.
That still isn't free. It must be permitted to remove any given
notice, as long as a correct one is added elsewhere.
> So this solves most of the issues, and we need to go through the QPL 3b again,
> but upstream feels it is a reasonable clause, and would like to keep it.
How about something like Best Practical's solution? A statement
*outside the license* that anything submitted to upstream for
inclusion in the public version is assumed to be coming from the
copyright holder and licensed to upstream for arbitrary use.
Heck, that statement + GPL would be about equivalent to that statement
+ QPL, from upstream's point of view...
> One last trouble i have is that the QPL 1.0 state :
>
> Copyright (C) 1999 Troll Tech AS, Norway.
> Everyone is permitted to copy and
> distribute this license document.
>
> So, this would make it illegal to modify the QPL as i have done
> here, right ?
That's right.
> Another way the upstream author has been suggesting was to keep the QPL 1.0 as
> is, and saying that ocaml is under the QPL 1.0 licence, except that clause QPL
> 6c and the Choice of venue part of the Choice of Law clause doesn'y apply.
That kind of license editing by inclusion quickly gets confusing.
It's not non-free, just painful for end users to understand.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: