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: > > 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.
I'm hoping that we could avoid this by getting all our ducks in a row before approaching upstream, and then saying "here are all of the concerns that the debian-legal people have. We'd appreciate it if you could assuage our concerns, and then all will be well". > > 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: > > 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 ... Like hell it does. Nobody except the copyright holder has the right to change the licence on a work. > > > > > > 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. Death-marches have never been my thing. My intention is to come to a solid consensus over the DFSG issues in the QPL. Rest assured that the moment I don't believe that to be possible, I'll stop posting and go fix my motorbike. > 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 :). Better be careful, someone might interpret that as a terroristy threat. > > > > 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 ? 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 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. I still think 6c is dangerous. It compels distribution for the term of copyright (or perhaps forever, since I wouldn't like to bet that a licence expires just because copyright does; after all, you agreed to it while copyright was valid...) > > > > > > 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. Admonishing me to read a document which is unrelated to the discussion will not win you any friends. I've been about as polite as I can be with you in this whole discussion, and for that I get dismissals like this. Please play nice. > > > > > > 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. Finding humour in a situation does not mean that I contrived the situation for my amusement. > > 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. Do you even want to give me a hint as to which one of your voluminous comments applies? Or should we just sit around throwing "read my other comments" at each other until the end of time? > 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. > 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 ? OK, but what happens then? We're not exactly in front of a judge and jury here -- there's no arbitrator to say whose interpretation is the most persuasive... - Matt
