Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 10:36:22PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > Ok, find attached the new ocaml licence proposal, which will go into > > > the ocaml 3.08.1 release, which is scheduled for inclusion in sarge. > > > As said previously, it fixes the clause of venue problem, and the > > > clause QPL 6c problem. > > > > Great! > > > > > The problems concerning QPL 3 remain, > > > > Not so great. > > > > > but consensus about it has been much more dubious, > > > > I haven't seen anyone seriously dispute my analysis in > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01705.html > > > > that there is a fee involved (you questioned whether it was an > > acceptable fee, not whether it was a fee at all). Matthew Palmer > > Bah, i am just sick to deal with this.
You are free to move ocaml to non-free if you don't want to deal with legal issues anymore. > As said, my proposal is to go with this for now, and concentrate on > the sarge release, and work on it more later, when patience for > legal haggling has built up again. > > > mentioned it again here > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01739.html > > > > and there was no response. I also mentioned it here > > Probably because everyone is bored with the issue though. > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/msg00131.html > > > > Unless someone comes up with something now, the argument looks pretty > > clear. > > Well, whatever. I still don't understand how the freedom you claim > is denied by this clause is a problem for the free/open/whatever > world, at the contrary, it is probably a benefit. I fail to see how requiring modifiers to contribute to proprietary software helps free software. But that still doesn't address the central point, that the license requires a fee for modifications. > > > so i propose we let it be right now, and revisit it maybe at a later > > > time, as i don't really have time for another monster debian-legal > > > flamewar, and am more busy getting my packages ready for the sarge > > > release than nit picking here. > > > > Getting DFSG-freeness issues fixed is just as important as technical > > fixes. > > Yes, but it is not as fun, at least for me, and i already lost > enough time for now with this whole issue. The main problem is fixed > now, and not everyone agrees that this is indeed a problem, so let's > leave this for a future second round, so you can all go back to > declare the MIT/X licence non-free or some other such non-sense :). You have to fix all of the problems. Not just the ones that you have time for. > > > Also, as said, it would be more constructive to let this be today, and > > > come > > > back once upstream is deciding to change licence completely, which may > > > well > > > happen in the next year or so, in followup to the CECILL licencing move. > > > > Since it sounds like the ocaml authors are not interested in > > completely fixing their license any time soon, it shouldn't be in > > main. If they change, and if the license is ok, then it can go into > > main. > > Ok, you want to go for a second round of complete abuse here ? I have still > not agreed that both the QPL 6c and the choice of venue clause are really > non-free, and posts like Brian's about the MIT/X licence non-freeness clearly > show the lack of seriousness in some if not most debian-legal position. > > > > Finally, i think that we have a general problem with the upstream > > > can use contribution in a proprietary way, since other packages seem > > > to be affected by this also. > > > > Please list those packages. I don't know of any others. > > Please go ahead and do your hand work. Just because there is QPL > marked on the ocaml package makes it an easy pick. But i recently > read of some major package licencing issues which allowed for > proprietary modifications, i think it was mozilla related, where > upstream no only was allowed to make modifications proprietary, but > they will only take back modification if you assign the copyright to > them, which is probably more unacceptable and harmfull, than the QPL > 3b clause, and you seem to have no problem in accepting this kind of > practices, or let's kick mozilla from main, in addition to X and > most of the BSD stuff, should we ? My guess is that you're talking about the problems with the MPL. Since there is an active relicensing effort going on, I don't see a need to throw out Mozilla just yet. Ocaml, on the other hand, does not even acknowledge all of the problems with the license. > Firendly, ^^^^ Freudian slip? ;) Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
