Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> writes:

> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>
>> * Licenses like the QPL, which compel me to give somebody more rights
>>   to my work than I had to his, are not Free.  They are not compatible
>>   with DFSG 3.
>
> This is where you lose me.  How is that incompatible with DFSG 3?  If
> the license says that Entity X gets extra rights (perhaps being the
> author of the original software), what prevents Author Y from
> releasing modifications under the same license terms ("Entity X gets
> extra rights to modifications")?

Nothing.  And I'm happy to grant permissive licenses to INRIA/Cristal,
Best Practical, or others who not only distribute their software, but
manage free software projects which incorporate change from the
community.

But the requirement that I *must* license under those terms is a
non-Free requirement.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu