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:
> My argument against "patch clauses with additional restrictions on the
> patches" is not in conflict with DFSG#4. I believe it's a completely
> reasonable interpretation that while DFSG#4 allows patch clauses, it does
> not allow patch clauses with yet more stipulations on how those patches can
> be distributed, as the QPL's does.
The only thing DFSG 4 says is that patch clauses are acceptable. It
effectively means "Modification by patches is equivilent to modification
by other means". Any other license issue is entirely orthogonal to that.
> The DFSG doesn't say that patch clauses with even more onerous restrictions
> attached are free, and I don't see any reason to think that Debian
> developers have agreed to that.
The DFSG says nothing about what form patch clauses may take. The
logical conclusion is that they be held to the same standards of freedom
as any other form of modification - that is, if forced granting of a
liberal license to upstream is non-free in patch clauses, it's non-free
in any other form of modification. If it's free in any other form of
modification, it's free in patch clauses.
>> More bluntly - if you disagree with the DFSG then I don't think you
>> should be attempting to influence decisions regarding which licenses
>> satisfy them.
>
> You can disagree with my arguments and my reasoning, but claiming that I
> shouldn't be on the list--which is what you just did--because I think the
> DFSG is imperfect and needs some fixing is insane. I'm hardly the only
> person that thinks DFSG#4 needs fixing. I'd hope few people here find
> "your argument is invalid because of your opinion" convincing.
I strongly believe that the only people influencing decisions about
whether Debian considers a license to be free or not should be people
who accept the core values embodied in the social contract and DFSG.
I've no objection to you making your opinions known, but it should be
made clear that they're the opinions of someone with a different set of
values. They certainly shouldn't be taken into account when it comes to
trying to determine whether there's a consensus of any description.
If you think DFSG 4 needs fixing, then try to get DFSG 4 fixed. If
you're successful with that, then I will happily apologise and admit
that your opinions are closer to those of Debian as a whole than mine
are. Until then, yes, I think your arguments are weakened. "This set of
people who hold a different set of freedoms to Debian believe this
license is non-free" is not a convincing reason for Debian to believe
that a license is non-free.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: