Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
> I think b) is only non-free if I'm required to grant freedoms to one or
> the other group that I wasn't granted myself, such that I'm required to
> redistribute derived works under different terms than those I received
> myself; DSFG#3.
I'm still not sure that this is what DFSG 3 was /intended/ to say, even
though it looks like that's what it does say. At a guess, I'd say that
it was there to prevent a situation where DFSG 3 effectively had to
contain the entirity of the rest of the DFSG again. The current phrasing
means that you never end up in a situation where the recipient is unable
to provide the set of freedoms that'd we'd describe as necessary.
On the other hand, the current phrasing has weird corner cases. A
hyopthetical license that said "This code is under a BSD-style license.
If you downloaded it via FTP, remove this license and attach the GNU GPL
version 2 or higher" probably /ought/ to be free, since there's never a
situation where it's not at least the GPL. But DFSG 3 appears to prevent
it. I don't think that's what it was intended to do, but the only person
who knows is Bruce.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: