[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: New ocaml licence proposal.



Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:53:42AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 05:53:14AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > > Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm sure that anyone would love to have that kind of term in a
> > > > license.  It still feels non-free to me.
> > > 
> > > Sure, but there is much less consensus about this one, so if a handfull of
> > > people feel it is non-free, i doubt it will come into play.
> > 
> > I would consider it a fee.  It is even enshrined in US copyright law [1]
> > 
> >   The term "financial gain" includes receipt, or expectation
> >   of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other
> >   copyrighted works.
> 
> Ok, well. But we need to consider non-US law also.
> 
> > Since all copyrights flow to the originator, I can't help but see it
> > as a fee for making modifications.
> 
> Well, even if we see it as such, do we really want to declare this clause as
> non-free ? After all it will simplify the administrative tasks involved in
> havign upstream integrate changes back, and in general will be a win for free
> software.
> 
> Notice that the non-freeness involved here, is about the freedom to not
> contribute back your changes, is this really something we want to defent ? 

If the clause required modifications to have no further restrictions
than are present in the original license (as in the GPL), then the
original author can still incorporate changes back into the software.
The linux kernel operates this way.  But the clause goes further by
allowing the original author to put your modifications into a
proprietary product.

> > > > > Also the first modification, well, i am not overly confident that it
> > > > > is really needed, and i am sure my wording of it are abysmal, and i
> > > > > ask for some help here in finding some nice and concise wording
> > > > > which doesn't divert to much from the original. The old wording was :
> > > > > 
> > > > >   a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices
> > > > >      in the Software.
> > > > > 
> > > > > And i changed it to : 
> > > > > 
> > > > >   a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices
> > > > >      in the Software except by adding new authors.
> > > > 
> > > > If I'm converting an interactive program to be non-interactive, I
> > > > still can't remove a hard-coded copyright string that pops up in an
> > > > "About" box.
> > > 
> > > Bah. I doubt this is what was meant here, and i doubt this is going to be a
> > > problem all over.
> > 
> > If you don't think that is what is meant, then change the wording to
> > say that (preferably, remove it).  Otherwise it is just lawyerbait.
> 
> debian-legal bait ?  :)))
> 
> Notice that i will have to add all this modification in a
> licence-patch why, saying : The software is under the QPL, except
> ..., so the less change is needed the less confusion it will be.

How about remove the clause?  It isn't actually needed.

> I would much rather keep this one as is, and concentrate at a later
> time to the change to another licence altogether, maybe one of the
> upcoming CECILL family.

If you could get it changed to the version with the explicit GPL
conversion clause, then we would have no issues.

> Now, if you could propose a sane and not too involved wording for
> the above, i and upstream would consider this. It should not exceed
> a few (preferably two) lines though.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu



Reply to: