Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:09:14AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> That "as long as" is important. It can be engaged in two ways. If I
> say "GPL except for to Bob, who gets Nothing! Nothing!" then that's
> not Free, because Bob doesn't have a Free license. If I say "BSD to
> teachers, GPL to everybody, and that pair must be passed along" then
> that's not Free. The QPL says "BSD to inria/cristal, copyleft/patch
> to everyone else, and that pair must be passed along" -- that "must",
> that added restriction, is the non-free part.
I'm not sure about this.
As stated, that "must" is inherent in copyright law -- if we start saying
that "free software" requires that non-copyright holders be allowed to
change license terms, I think we've missed the boat.
Can you express this point focussing on issues of real, practical
non-freeness? [for example, stuff which interferes with porting, bug
fixes, security fixes, ...]
What you're essentially saying, from my point of view, is that where we
have two licenses, both of which are free, one discriminates against
users and the other does not. But if that were the case, one of them
wouldn't be free.
[Note: I will agree that the QPL isn't GPL compatible without an
explicit exception. And that can be an issue which makes QPL licensed
code non-distributable (and thus non-free) in some circumstances.]
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: