Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the3.08.1 release going into sarge.
BTS wrote:
>3. Distribute them to the initial developer under the same license --
> that is, without letting him distribute changes to my patches (such
> as the application of them to the mainline source) except as
> further patches.
Ah, the devil's in the details. See, I was wondering whether that was
necessarily what "the same license" and similar terms in DFSG 3 meant. Maybe
it is, but maybe not.
What does "distribute under the same terms as the license of the original
software" mean precisely?
(a) "grant the same set of permissions to your recipient as the the set of
permissions *you* received regarding the original software"
This seems more natural, and I guess it's the interpretation you were using.
(b) "grant the same set of permission->person grants regarding your work as
were granted regarding the original work"
This was the interpretation I was thinking about.
I'm sure you can see how this makes a difference to whether discriminatory
licenses like the QPL satisfy the "same terms" clause.
Suppose package A is licensed to anyone under GPL and to me alone under a
proprietary license. I can distribute my modifications to a third party,
granting her the GPL permissions, but I *cannot* grant her the set of
permissions I recieved. This is considered DFSG-free. So interpretation (a)
seems to fail here. On the other hand, interpretation (b) seems to work.
I certainly don't claim to be certain here.
Reply to: