Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:38:00PM +0200, Claus Färber wrote:
> This does not mean they can't use the code in products not licensed
> under the QPL. With clause #3b, contributors have to give them
> permission to do so. The clause only means they can't take submitted
> code for proprietary works and never release it in an QPL-licensed work.
>
> As long as the submitted code is made available under the QPL, they can
> also make it available under any other license. Note that clause #3b
> does (IMO intentionally) not require modifications of the contributed
> code to be available under the QPL, so they can also license it under
> different open source licenses, including the GPL.
I believe the above is not in agreement with the license:
"... is granted to the initial developer of the Software to distribute
your modification in future versions of the Software provided such
versions remain available under these terms in addition to any other
license(s) of the initial developer."
I don't see any implication that the intent of the above is to allow the
initial developer, or anyone else, to use the modification in other works
which are not available under the QPL. The above says to me, as a
(theoretical) contributor, "the stuff your patch can be used in will always
be available under the QPL".
I'm not inclined to push and shove at this, if both the initial author
and contributors are believed to agree on the interpretation you give
(just because there are better uses of my time), but I do believe it
doesn't folllow from the text.
--
Glenn Mayard
Reply to: