Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:38:38PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: >>On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:30:29AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: >>>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 ? > > The Trolltech annotations, on reading over them, don't truly address the > worries that I, personally, have with the licence. The two troublesome > points, 3b and 6c, both have fairly poor explanations for their existence. > In fact, 3b's annotation only enhances my concern -- Trolltech are quite > up-front about their desire to take my modifications and sell them to other > people, without any equivalent compensation to me. > > Also, there's a bunch of mentions of Qt and Trolltech in the annotations, > which sound a bit odd in a licence for OCaml. <grin> > >>>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. > > It would make me happier about 6c. With the annotations there, we can argue > that there's no potential for abuse. There's still the timelimit issue, > though. I strongly disagree; the annotations strongly indicate that the intent of 6c is to prevent people from having private modifications, and that is exactly the interpretation we already expected. > I think it's best if we collect all of the problems we're having and get > clarification. Random annotations from upstream might not address our > points of concern. > >>>> 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. No need to drop all of clause 6; if they would drop 6c, that would solve half the problem right there. In my opinion, 6c and the choice of venue are the only non-free clauses; there are others that are annoying but not non-free. >>Alternatively, a clean recapitulation of all this would be a good thing right >>now maybe. > > Quite possibly. I think that starting a clean thread for each problematic > clause should work, with an admonishment not to bring unrelated matters into > each relevant thread, to keep it clean. This seems like a good idea. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature