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

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 11:56:03PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > If I understand correctly, you argue that DFSG #1-#9 should be
> > interpreted in such a way to make the GPL free (because of, among
> > other things, flamewars on -legal).  That makes DFSG #10 a no-op.  I
> > argue that DFSG #10 enforces a particular interpretation.  DFSG #10 is
> > thus a consistency check.  For those with the proper mindset, DFSG #10
> > is thus a no-op.  I'm not sure that we're disagreeing about anything
> > important.
> 
> I can't tell if your position is that DFSG#10 is a grandfathering clause
> or that it's an interpretive guideline.  "Copyleft is only allowed because
> it is explicitly grandfathered in by DFSG #10" seems to be the former;
> that the GPL fails DFSG#1-9, but DFSG#10 overrides that.  Here, "I argue
> that DFSG #10 enforces a particular interpretation" seems the latter; that
> the GPL passes DFSG#1-9, due to DFSG#10.  These seem to be two very
> different interpretations.
> 
> Could you clarify your position?

Perhaps using the term "grandfathering" was ill advised.  That would
mean licenses with similar terms would be non-free.  Rather, DFSG #10
enforces a particular interpretation.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu