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 Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:25:18AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> 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?

F# is basically a .net implementation of ocaml by MS.

Friendly,

Sven Luther