Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl> writes:
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 01:29:51PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl> writes:
>> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 02:09:52PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> >> * I can't fork the code, even distributing as patches. There's no way
>> >> for me to make XEmacs, which is FSF Emacs + code by people who won't
>> >> transfer copyright to the FSF.
>> >
>> > This part I find particularly interesting, because I see the freedom
>> > to fork as fundamental. I don't understand your reasoning, though.
>> > Can you explain what would go wrong if I tried to create an XOcaml?
>>
>> INRIA downloads it and incorporates the neat features into the
>> proprietary version, which they sell to others.
>
> How does that stop you from forking the code?
>
> Are we using different meanings of "fork", perhaps? If I fork a project,
> I don't mind if the original maintainers then give up their branch and
> use mine. In fact, it validates my decision.
So you make your fork. INRIA downloads it, sells it to Bob. Bob
makes some changes of his own, and sells it back to you.
You own a copyright on some of the stuff Bob is selling you -- if
he's following the law, then you *already* have the right to modify
that. But you can't take those features and step into INRIA's role.
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: