Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
Matthew Palmer <email@example.com> writes:
> It would be hard to argue that the licence implies that the patch must be
> under the QPL, because (a) copyright law in the jurisdictions I'm aware of
> says nothing about reciprocity of terms of derived works, (b) section 4
> explicitly states when you must licence your modifications under the QPL, so
> it's obvious they've thought about it, and (c) 3b says "When modifications
> to the Software are released under this license", which strongly implies to
> me that you have a choice as to whether or not to place your modifications
> under the QPL (unless compelled by section 4).
I think you've read "under this license" as meaning that I license my
modifications to others under the QPL. I read it rather differently:
I think that says that if I release modifications, and the license
which allows me to release them is the QPL, then I must make this grant.
That is, it's not talking about the license under which my changes are
available to you, but about the license under which I perform the act
of releasing: "modifications to the software are released under this
Brian Sniffen firstname.lastname@example.org