Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 02:34:15AM +0100, Matthew Garrett 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.
It's explicitly a compromise; it does not imply that Debian must allow not
only patch clauses, but heavily restricted patches, or that restrictions
on patches must be regarded without respect to the fact that it's pushing
a compromise even further.
That aside, I do feel that "here's a restrictive, barely-free license;
to modify you must give me a much less restrictive license on your
modifications" is, in the general case as well as the patch case, non-free.
I havn't been able to find the root of the non-freeness yet, though, so I'll
drop the argument for now.
> > 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.
I believe the patch exception of DFSG#4 is in direct conflict with the
core values embodied in the rest of the DFSG and the social contract.
I'm sorry that you feel that I, Ian Jackson [1], Wichert Akkerman [2],
and Branden Robinson [3] should have no say on this list, as well as
everyone who votes for a change to the DFSG which ultimately fails. I
feel no need to dispute this ad hominem further, since I have no worry
of any substantial portion of Debian agreeing with it. You're free to
disregard my arguments if you wish--anyone can do that for any reason--but
don't assume others will do likewise.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/11/msg02323.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/11/msg02443.html
[3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00323.html
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: