On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 09:20:31AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Ok, after a first contact with upstream, there seems to be some informal > > agreement to modify the ocaml licence to the following text : > > > > > > http://svn.debian.org/viewcvs/pkg-ocaml-maint/packages/ocaml/copyright?view=markup&rev=502 > > That's great news! > > > Changes are : > > > > a) Modified clause 3a to allow for adding authors to and translation of > > copyright notices. > > That still isn't free. It must be permitted to remove any given > notice, as long as a correct one is added elsewhere.
Well, i feel even less convinced by this if you say it that way. > > So this solves most of the issues, and we need to go through the QPL 3b > > again, > > but upstream feels it is a reasonable clause, and would like to keep it. > > How about something like Best Practical's solution? A statement > *outside the license* that anything submitted to upstream for > inclusion in the public version is assumed to be coming from the > copyright holder and licensed to upstream for arbitrary use. > > Heck, that statement + GPL would be about equivalent to that statement > + QPL, from upstream's point of view... Well, let's see if we can avoid it. The first claim of non-freeness of the QPL only mentioned the choice of venue and the QPL 6c, so ... > > One last trouble i have is that the QPL 1.0 state : > > > > Copyright (C) 1999 Troll Tech AS, Norway. > > Everyone is permitted to copy and > > distribute this license document. > > > > So, this would make it illegal to modify the QPL as i have done > > here, right ? > > That's right. :(. What if we call it the OCAML licence, which is mostly QPL 1.0, except ... > > Another way the upstream author has been suggesting was to keep the QPL 1.0 > > as > > is, and saying that ocaml is under the QPL 1.0 licence, except that clause > > QPL > > 6c and the Choice of venue part of the Choice of Law clause doesn'y apply. > > That kind of license editing by inclusion quickly gets confusing. > It's not non-free, just painful for end users to understand. Well, it is no worse than the LGPL excemption. And i don't think there is much choice here. Friendly, Sven Luther
