Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> I'm aware of that. They're all insane, too.
>
> At least we understand your sanity standard now ;)
It's fairly internally consistent...
>> Raul remembers incorrectly. Anyone with access to the debian-private
>> archives is free to check this.
>
><rant> Secret deliberations. Bah. This is why having almost any
> discussion on debian-private is a bad thing. </rant>
I agree. It makes it much harder for people to understand the reasons
for things being as they are.
>> The addition of the list of licenses was a direct result of Ray
>> Dassen suggesting that a list of licenses we considered free be
>> added. I can find no suggestion that the GPL would otherwise be
>> considered non-free.
>
> Raul provided links to statements that the Artistic license is not
> free.
He provided a link to one from ESR. At the time, ESR was engaged in a
bitter argument over the freeness of ncurses. It had been forked without
his permission, and he wanted to tighten the license to prevent that
from happening again. Debian weren't too keen on that. It's a point used
in an argument, rather than a firmly held opinion.
>> People are suggesting that copyleft licenses are only free because of
>> DFSG 10.
>
> My position is that there is a clear reading of the DFSG that keeps
> the GPL out. However, if you interpret the word "fee" in a strange
> way, then you can keep the GPL in. DFSG #10 forces that
> interpretation. So other copyleft licenses are also ok. However,
> that kind of munging is a very different beast from what would be
> required to make QPL 3b ok.
That doesn't really work, though. In other cases, the fudges to make it
clear that licenses are free occur in the first 9 clauses. The artistic
license is free because of DFSG 1's phrasing, not because it's
explicitly listed in DFSG 10.
>> Are you honestly suggesting that it is the intention of the DFSG to
>> draw the line of freedom in such a way that the GPL falls outside
>> it, and that the GPL is only accepted for pragmatic reasons?
>
> I would say that the DFSG uses imprecise language. DFSG #10 enforces
> a particular interpretation of the language. That is, DFSG #1 does
> not really mean _no_ fee, just not certain types of fees.
Right. And, inevitably, it's left up to Debian to interpret what is
meant by "fee". I don't think it's obvious that QPL 3b is more of a fee
than some of the GPL's requirements. Other people's opinions differ.
>> This point was not controversial at the point where the social contract
>> was written and voted on. Any controversy is purely down to people's
>> interpretations of the DFSG changing.
>
> Then why was there so much discussion over the Artistic license?
There wasn't. Not relevant or interesting discussion, anyway.
As a point of interest, it's only the final draft of the DFSG that
includes DFSG 10 as a numbered clause rather than an informational
statement at the end. The change is made without explanation. Most of
the discussion that went into the DFSG was under the assumption that it
was a noop. You'd have to ask Bruce why it ended up as a numbered clause
with the same level of importance as everything else.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: