Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: New ocaml licence proposal.
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 02:31:27PM +0200, Sven Luther 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.
Let's, then. What does French copyright law define as a fee or financial
gain?
> > 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.
It's not exactly rocket science to add a "some modifications (C) Foo Wombat"
to each file touched by a patch submitted by Foo Wombat. With a decent
revision control system it's even straightforward to identify when those
changes get written back out again so you can remove the (C) notice.
What you're talking about, I believe, is simplifying the ability of
upstream to release proprietary versions of the software, requiring no
explicit copyright assignment or permission grant. That is a little more
difficult to judge as "a win for free software", except in the sense that
upstream gets money to continue to develop "free" software. And yet there
are no shortage of Free Software projects that have thrived without this
clause.
> 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 ?
Yes. Otherwise we end up with licence clauses requiring that all software
you write must be freely licenced and publically distributed as a condition
of some piece of software. Not contributing your changes upstream is
something you want to protect just as much as your right to not distribute a
work under a Free licence in the first place.
Note that this statement shall not be construed in a way as to discourage
copyleft. That is a notice from the original copyright holder saying "if
you want to distribute bits of my work, you have to do equivalent things to
your work". Compelling even *submission* upstream goes further, and
compelling an all-permissive licence to upstream is well beyond the simple
"share-alike" provisions of copyleft.
> > > > > 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.
>
> 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. 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.
>
> 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.
Here's a nice short one:
""
Copyright law has nassssty things to say about people who file off copyright
notices. No need to go restating them, especially in a manner which
restricts modifications unnecessarily. If you *really* *must* have the
clause, how about:
"Modifications must retain the effect of existing notices of copyright
interest in the software."
That way copyright notices can be moved, translated, and whatever else needs
to be done with them, as long as the notice still says "this work is (C) Me".
- Matt
Reply to: