Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:02:01AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> > >> I fail to see how requiring modifiers to contribute to proprietary
> > >> software helps free software.
> > >
> > > Because the proprietary version can only happen if the _SAME_
> > > patch is also applied to the QPLed version.
> >
> > To *some* QPL'd version. It doesn't have to be the public one.
>
> Well, ok. But the same happens on the GPL, no ? And in general,
> upstream would not want to maintain a forked version, which is
> exactly why he chose this licence, so ...
No, the same thing does not happen with the GPL. Trolltech can take
contributions under the QPL and include it both in the free X11
version and the (very expensive) Windows version. If you tried to do
that with the GPL, you would have to make the Windows version GPL'd as
well.
> > > Also, this clause allow upstream to apply the patch to his tree
> > > without over burdening him to keep two separate trees.
> >
> > What's burdening him is his desire to have a proprietary version, not
> > a contribution of free software for him to use in other free software.
>
> And ? Is that so wrong ? Will you declare the BSD non-free too ?
It is the forced license of modifications that is the problem. BSD
makes little demands on modified versions.
> > > So this means that more patches can be incorporated, and thus
> > > the community benefits from it. The fact that there is a
> > > proprietary version which is _THE SAME_ as the QPLed one, is
> > > hardly even noticeable, especially in the ocaml case, where i
> > > doubt there is any significant business going around the
> > > proprietary version.
> >
> > It's not the same. It has extra features -- anything from the free
>
> Maybe in the Qt case, but not in the ocaml case.
Are you saying that if Qt were licensed under the same terms as ocaml,
Qt would be non-free while ocaml would be free? Even though they are
under the exact same license?
This is yet another example where you are assuming that the initial
developers are angels. Debian must assume that they are devils, not
the least because developers have become devils in the past. I wonder
how many times we are going to have to repeat this before you get it.
> > software community goes into both, but INRIA's own work or paid work
> > for paying supporters can go into the private one alone. And if
>
> The aim is to provide a version of the code base to the ocaml
> consortium team members, which has a less restrictive licence, in
> order for them to do their own in-house variant or whatever. Or
> simply because their hierarchy is frivolous with open source
> stuff. All the ocaml-team based development is going into the open
> source version, except maybe some highly experimental stuff that
> never got released.
You're giving me the impression that they want to do something to
other people's code that they won't allow to their own code. They are
free to have those goals, but that doesn't make licenses which further
those goals free.
> > there's no business being helped by this clause, then what's the harm
> > in removing QPL 3?
>
> Well, i would much prefer that they change licence wholy to something more
> acceptable, that they continue this "our code is under the QPL, but <insert
> long list of exception>.
>
> > > Now, this is much better than the BSD situation, where any code
> > > can be made proprietary without restrictions, and the BSD is
> > > free.
> >
> > But the BSD license doesn't *force* a proprietary version; it just
> > allows it. The QPL forces modifiers to grant permission for a
> > proprietary version.
>
> So ?
>
> > That force is what makes it non-free.
>
> How is your freedom to use the program diminished in any way ? You
> can do with the software anything you could without the QPL 3
> clause, and if upstream is incorporating their stuff in a
> proprietary version, you probably won't even notice. How can you
> consider something a fee, if you are not in the slightest affected
> by it ?
RMS came up with copyleft precisely because of the problems of third
parties incorporating stuff into proprietary versions. If you don't
understand the motivations behind copyleft, I'm not sure that there is
much to talk about.
> > > And ? Did i not say that the ocaml team was considering moving
> > > the licence to the little brother of the CECILL family ? And
> > > that we should postpone the debate right now until those are
> > > released, and upstream is ready to make the change, probably for
> > > the next version. I even provided the link and quoted upstream
> > > on this two times here, but nobody seems to have cared.
> >
> > You have not posted a link to a new CECILL-like license that I've
>
> Stop being obtuse, and go read the archive. I posted it two times, not a link
> to this new CECILL licence, but a post of Xavier, where he claimed the
> possibility of ocaml moving to such a licence, if it was declared non-free by
> debian and others.
The post you mentioned was very vague, and just mentioned that they
would like to move to a DFSG free license in the future. Knowing how
much people love to deal with legal issues, that future may take a
long time in coming.
> > seen. In any case, if this is a plausible solution for you, then why
> > not move OCaml to non-free for Sarge, then move it back when it's
> > under a Free license?
>
> Don't be ridicoulous, will you. Moving ocaml to non-free for sarge, means
> moving over 70 packages to non-free that depend on it, including some debian
> administrative stuff, like i think cdbs, or some of the subversion dependency
> chain, or coq 8, which was recently freed too.
According to "apt-cache --recurse" on my testing system, only coq has a
dependency. Neither cdbs nor subversion do.
> It is totally irresponsable to suggest this mere days before the
> sarge freeze, and only shozs you have no grasp on the realities of
> debian release management.
Bugs have to be fixed, no matter when they are found.
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
Reply to: