Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> Yes, it does -- it prevents me from incorporating any patch to which I
>> don't own the copyright.  There is no license I can have from anybody
>> which permits me to grant a license like this to the "initial
>> developer" -- granting new licenses is something only the copyright
>> holder can do.
>
> If the patch is significant then it's already triggered QPL 3b at the
> time the author provided it to you. If the patch is insignificant then
> it doesn't matter. The only thing that allows the author of the patch
> the right to send it to you in the first place is the QPL, and they have
> no right to send you that patch unless they've already granted
> permission to the copyright holder.

I've been following Sven's interpretation of QPL 3b's wording "under
this license."  That is, rather than reading it as "permitted by this
license," reading it as distribution of modifications themselves
licensed under the QPL.

If you use Sven's interpretation, then there's a serious practical
problem, because source-only modifications can be released under any
license.

I'm not willing to endorse that interpretation myself, but frankly I
don't know what INRIA and trolltech think it means, and I'm afraid
they agree with him.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu