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

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 10:32:23AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> 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.

And ? 

> > > > > > 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.

Well, you are a bit liberal in removing it. I seriously doubt it will cause
any problem.

> > 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.

Well, it will most assuredly not be the GPL-like licence anyway, so ...

> > 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.

Still no alternate wording, that means the old clause stays.

Friendly,

Sven Luther