Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:30:29AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Something first off -- if we get together a complete list of issues we have
> with the licence (which are, after all, mostly matters of interpretation),
> do you believe that OCaml upstream will get shirty if you ask them for
> clarification of intent with regards to those issues?
My worse fear is that they won't answer, thinking, ah, no, not another
licensing issue. As i believe they have gone for
vacation for the next couple of weeks, i doubt i will get any answer before
middle august or begining of september.
> If so, that may be of more use than these swings and roundabouts we seem to
> be enjoying so much.
I clearly don'ty enjoy them. I think you are right for some others probably
though.
> Oh, and by the way, I've been getting bounces on my posts to debian-ocaml.
Yeah, my fault, the list master some time back decided the debian-ocaml-maint
was the right list name, and i did forget about it.
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:37:57AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 08:47:54PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:03:05AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:31:34PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:06:22AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > That is *the* big problem with the QPL, IMO. The initial developer, by
> > > virtua of being the plankowner of the software, gets special rights, which
> > > no future developer gets. It's even worse, because who exactly the "initial
> > > developer" actually is is not clearly specified. Am I, a future modifier of
> > > the software, now one of the "initial developers" of the modified software?
> >
> > Well, whatever, it is another issues, so please don't muddle the water.
> >
> > > Those problems *might* be ameliorated by an appropriate definition of
> > > "initial developer", but the fact that one, special, person gets
> > > preferential treatment under the licence basically kills it for me, no
> > > matter what terminology you wish to use.
> >
> > This may be discussable, but offtopic in this thread.
>
> OK, but rest assured that 3b *is* a problem, and by dropping it from this
> thread, you're only prolonging your time here.
No, i propose that we discuss 3b in another thread, so as to no muddle the
water of the case of 6c. Already i was told that i should have separated the
6c and the court of venue in two separate threads.
> > > > > The licence of the original software was "must distribute
> > > > > (changed|linked)[1] versions to O. Author". Now, does the licence of the
> > > > > modifications Q say "must distribute changes (of the modifications) to O.
> > > > > Author" or "must distribute changes (of the modifications) to J. Modifier"?
> > > > > If the former, then J. Modifier, the author of the modification Q, is being
> > > > > denied options that original author had, which is a DFSG #5 problem, and if
> > > > > the licence is the latter, it fails DFSG #3 because the licence is not the
> > > > > same as the original.
> > > >
> > > > Well, compare it to the GPL ? The original authour had the choice of
> > > > of using whatever licence he wanted, but a work linked with the GPLed
> > > > software has no choice but to be the GPL (or some minor derivative).
> > >
> > > You consider the BSD licence to be a minor derivative of the GPL?
> >
> > Ah, you claim that you can get some GPLed code, make modifications to it, and
> > then release it under the BSD ? I seriously doubt that and would like you to
> > reconsider, or give some real argumentation of it.
>
> You seem to have trouble keeping your arguments straight. You yourself have
> said that section 6 deals with linking, not modification. We're not
> supposed to be talking about modification here. And yet you are.
Err, the GPL makes no distinction between modified versions and stuff linked
with it, so i don't really understand your point.
> And what you say I'm saying is not what I'm saying.
>
> You said "[A] work linked with the GPLed software has no choice but to be
> the GPL (or some minor derivative)". The straight 2-clause BSD licence is
> suitable to be linked with GPLed software. Hence, by your reasoning "GPL
> (or some minor derivative)", the 2-clause BSD is either the GPL or some
> minor derivative.
Ah, ok. Well, but once that done, the 2-clause BSD covered work automatically
becomes a GPLed work, so ...
> > > > > Firstly, what exactly is meant by linking? I'd say "the inclusion (by
> > > > > inclusion or reference) of some (typically) object code into an executable
> > > > > for the purpose of future execution".
> > > >
> > > > Whatever, we are both in the software world, as is the author of ocaml, as is
> > > > the author of the QPL, and we all clearly know what is meant by linking..
> > >
> > > I like to be clear on these points. I take it that you don't disagree with
> > > my definition for the purposes of this discussion?
> >
> > Well, i disagree with discussion for the purpose of discussing, let's get
> > things done, as this already lost enough of my time.
>
> You'll waste more of your time if we're talking at cross-purposes because of
> differences in definitions.
If there is going to be a point at the end, which i have not seen yet.
> > > > > If the original code is entirely contained within A.o, and I make various
> > > > > modifications to A.c (producing A'.c) and recompile (producing A'.o), my
> > > > > modifications are essentially linked with various parts of the original A.o
> > > > > to produce A'.o. Hence, essentially every modification I make is a linked
> > > > > work, especially considering that the QPL only allows patch distribution.
> > > >
> > > > I don't believe this is what is meant here, and if so, why did the QPL not
> > > > choose another language ?
> > >
> > > I don't know. There's no shortage of questionable language in licence
> > > texts.
> >
> > Sure, and just making bogus interpetations of it, is not going to advance us,
> > why not use some common sense instead ?
>
> Because there's no guarantee that the arguments used in court will
> necessarily contain common sense.
No, there is no guarantee at all, so no licence is free as long as a judicial
system remains in place, so let's bomb all the courtehouses :).
> > > In these sorts of situations, we tend to get clarifications from upstream,
> > > usually through the debian maintainer. Would you be willing to seek
> > > clarification from upstream on this point, if it is not deemed "clean" by
> > > consensus? I'm happy to accept an appropriate clarification from ocaml
> > > upstream on this point.
> >
> > And did you read the annotated QPL from trolltech, it says :
>
> And did you notice that trolltech is not a copyright holder on OCaml, and
> therefore their opinion isn't worth a hill of beans? Annotations are useful
Well, but the ocaml upstream read it. Would it satisfy you if i asked them to
aprove those annotations ? Or make their own ?
> to determine the state of mind of a copyright holder. A statement from the
> copyright holders of OCaml stating that their views match those expressed in
> the Annotated QPL would go some way to solving these problems.
Ok, if this will make you happy.
> > This is a license designed for libraries, therefore we must also talk about
>
> [...]
>
> > Is there still some doubt after that ? And how does it apply to some
> > program who is not a library.
>
> Why is INRIA trying to apply a licence for libraries to a regular program?
> I suspected that was a large part of the problem.
Because it other properties are nice. I think if i ask them to drop clause 6
entirely, they may even agree, apart from the bother of not using a stock
licence anymore, with stock interpretation. But it seems the non-freeness
point has shifted from 6c now anyway, so why bother.
> > > > > To make a clearer example, consider an original work with A.c and B.c. If I
> > > > > create a C.c, which replaces B.c, my modifications are very definitely
> > > > > linking with A.o when I compile.
> > > >
> > > > Sure, all this is known from the technicalities of the GPL, which goes to some
> > > > length to ensure that hidden modification using a linked library is not
> > > > allowed. But both of we know what is meant here, and i doubt a judge would be
> > > > sympatic to use tiptoeing around it. Furthermore, the normal modification is
> > > > covered by section 3 to 4.
> > >
> > > You appear to believe that that just because the issue is discussed in one
> > > clause it cannot be revisited later. Do you have any basis for that belief?
> > > I would imagine that the licensor may wish to discuss different aspects of
> > > the same act in different places.
> >
> > Do you have any belief on the contrary ? Did you even read the annotated QPL
> > from trolltech, i believe i or someone else has posted the link here before.
>
> Whose authority prevails if we both hold our beliefs? I haven't read the
> annotated QPL from Trolltech, because it has infinitesimal bearing on what
> INRIA thinks of the licence.
So, do your homework and read it, then you can comment. Until you do, i wonder
what point there is in discussing things with you.
> > > > > Seriously, the "only force distribution of linked code" argument is not
> > > > > going to fly.
> > > >
> > > > Reread :
> > > >
> > > > 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
> > > > software items that link with the original or modified versions of the
> > > > Software.
> > > >
> > > > How do you justify your vision that any work linked with the software is a
> > > > modification thereof, given the above sentence construction, which nominatedly
> > > > mentions the modified version of the software ?
> > >
> > > I'm arguing the other way around. That modification is a form of linking,
> > > and hence all modifications fall under clause 6. Linking isn't necessarily
> >
> > Bogus arguing, please don't delay this just for the fun of it, it is _NOT_
> > funny.
>
> I think it's quite funny. You think that merely by saying "bogus arguing"
If you find any of this discussion funny, then i would like an apology from
you for making me lose my time and dragging me in this issue, just for your
own enjoyement.
> you can make my argument disappear. If it's bogus, show it to be so. Bald
> assertions have very little mass.
Well, please read every past comment in this thread before comenting again. I
am sick of people thinking they can make every one loose their time, and then
not bother with reading pasts comment.
Alternatively, a clean recapitulation of all this would be a good thing right
now maybe.
> > > > > To attack the problem from an entirely different perspective, I
> > > > > think we need to revisit the question of "does linking qualify as
> > > > > creating a derivative work?". I don't want to really try and answer
> > > > > the question, and I don't think it matters in this case, but here
> > > > > are the options:
> > > >
> > > > Well, explain to me how the formulation of 6. explained above enters
> > > > in this consideration.
> > >
> > > Linking is what we're talking about. Whether that (dynamic) linking creates
> > > a derived work determines which of the options I gave comes into play.
> >
> > Thanks for not responding to my question. It is clear you decided not to
> > read QPL 6, and refuse to take the formulation of it into consideration.
> > Thus your argument here is unreceivable.
>
> The formulation of section 6 in what way? That it talks about linking? I
> think we've established that. If you've got something more to add, please
> add it right here. The "explained above" could cover any number of
> paragraphs that you'd written.
Ok, this is not going to make sense. Tomorrow i will start a new thread for
each of the problematic cases, and we can go into them one by one. I doubt
that this extensive quoting of giant mails is binging us anywhere.
Maybe it would be best that you don't try refuting all my points, but present
your own interpretation from the start to the end ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: