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

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 05:29:43PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> 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.

So you claim that once the original work incorporate a patch, then the result
is not a derivative work of that patch ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther