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

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> writes:

> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:39:47PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Because there are three works in question: the original work A, and
>> your patch to it P(A).  Then there's the version the initial developer
>> releases, B=A+P(A).  He releases that to his dog under the QPL, so it's
>> available, and sells it to me under the GPL.  I don't see the separate
>> patch, I just see this as work B.  I make some further changes to this
>> and release to the world under the GPL as work C.
>> 
>> The "future version of the software" containing the work *you*
>> contributed is still available to the world under the QPL.
>
> You labelled versions but didn't use those labels in the final sentence,
> so I'm not sure which one you meant (both B and C fit).

You're right, I'm sorry.  B is still available under the QPL.  If you
don't like the dog argument, he can offer to sell B to you under the
QPL for a thousand bucks, not an unreasonable fee for software, and
then it's available.  If you don't like that, then ignore the loophole
potential of "available" and we can assume he just offers it for free.

> Work B?  How?  He only released it to his dog, not to the world, and you'd
> have a hard time asking the dog to send it even if you knew he had it.  If
> you're claiming that you can get around the requirement to keep it available
> under the QPL by releasing once to an uninterested party (such as a dog),
> you're talking about loopholes.
>
> Work C?  It isn't available to the world under the QPL, only the GPL, and it,
> too, is a future version of the software, with my patch in it.  (Well,
> "Software" isn't defined, so it isn't clear if it's the same "Software" after
> being modified a few more times and going through a few more hands; but it
> sure feels like it is.)

No, it's different software -- it's not INRIA Ocaml, it's Microsoft
OCaml.NET or something.  Contains related components, but that's
common in software development, right?

> (The portion of C which is B--the part owned by me or the initial developer--
> is still available under the QPL, if it could be extracted from C; but
> C as a whole still seems to be a "future version of" B, and it's not available
> under the QPL.)
>
> -- 
> Glenn Maynard

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu