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>]

Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:

>> So yes, the initial author doesn't have to respect a license of the
>> modifier unless he wants to make further modifications to the patch.
>
> Well, you are equally unrestricted as long as you don't modify the original
> upstream code, are you not ? So this is indeed the same kind of permissions
> that apply to upstream when taking your patch than you when taking the
> original code.

I can't make any sense out of this.  Can you rephrase it?


>> Which, incidentally, is an issue.  If some user sends you a patch for
>> O'Caml, you can't apply it, because then you'll be distributing
>> software under the QPL, and trigger QPL 3b, which means you have to
>> grant the initial author permission to relicense... but you aren't the
>> copyright holder for the patch, and so can't grant that permission.
>
> No, i don't believe this to be a problem. It is a separate patch, so whoever
> want to modify it, he can take your patch, the original upstream, build its
> own modified stuff based on both, and then release its own patch and binary
> distrib based on both your and his work in addition to the original work.
>
> Still, the fact that you are speaking of patches here is cosmetic. The reality
> is that all three persons involved here produce code, and that once it is
> integrated together, all three pieces of code are mutually derivatives of the
> two others, and thus the rights granted under the QPL flow in all ways.

This I can make sense of, and it bears no relation to any sense of the
phrase "derivative work" with which I am familiar.  Neither does it
relate to the "modifications" of which the QPL speaks.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu