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

[Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>> 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.
> 
> But with that license, we can just jump through the hoops and
> distribute it under the GPL, which is free.  We can't take advantage
> of wacky privileges the author gives, but that's OK.

Sigh. Yes. Postulate a similar license whose hoops we can't jump
through. Should it be free? If not, why not?

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org