License question: tricky issue

License question: tricky issue

[Alessandro Baretta]

Would the authors/copyright holders consider a tarball containing an Ocaml 
source tarball plus other source code and other source tarballs as a 
distribution of their software or as a derived work? The question is tricky due 
to the non-free public license adopted by Inria originally.

I ask this question because I would like to release a source distribution for 
Ocaml containing all source tarballs and all patches needed to build a complete 
AS/Xcaml toolchain. This includes one or more stable ocaml tarballs, an 
ocaml-cvs directory (for testing purposes), a metaocaml tarball, and a quite a 
few libraries (findlib, pcre-ocaml, ocamlnet, pxp, extlib, postgres and a bunch 
more). If I understand the QPL correctly, should this project be considered a 
derived work I would not be allowed to distribute it; whereas, if it is 
considered a distribution, à la Debian, there should be no problem.

Notice that all modifications to other peoples code exist in my distribution in 
the form of patch files, which are automatically applied before the build 
process begins.

Alex


-- 
*********************************************************************

Ing. Alessandro Baretta

Studio Baretta
http://studio.baretta.com/

Consulenza Tecnologica e Ingegneria Industriale
Technological Consulting and Industrial Engineering

tel. +39 02 370 111 55
fax. +39 02 370 111 54

Re: [Caml-list] License question: tricky issue

[Sven Luther]

On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 08:56:26AM +0100, Alessandro Baretta wrote:
> Would the authors/copyright holders consider a tarball containing an Ocaml 
> source tarball plus other source code and other source tarballs as a 
> distribution of their software or as a derived work? The question is tricky 
> due to the non-free public license adopted by Inria originally.

Hum, ... I am not sure what non-free-ness you mention here, but i believe that
as of today the distribution of ocaml is covered by a free licence, at least
considered so by debian, and you know what that covers.

> I ask this question because I would like to release a source distribution 
> for Ocaml containing all source tarballs and all patches needed to build a 
> complete AS/Xcaml toolchain. This includes one or more stable ocaml 
> tarballs, an ocaml-cvs directory (for testing purposes), a metaocaml 
> tarball, and a quite a few libraries (findlib, pcre-ocaml, ocamlnet, pxp, 
> extlib, postgres and a bunch more). If I understand the QPL correctly, 
> should this project be considered a derived work I would not be allowed to 
> distribute it; whereas, if it is considered a distribution, à la Debian, 
> there should be no problem.

Nope, clause 4 of the QPL clearly grants you rights to distribute not only the
binaries of ocaml but also modified forms of said binaries, provided they come
under the QPL, and clause 3 of the QPL provides you with the right to
distribute modifications in such a way as the original pristine tarball can be
clearly identified.

So, i would say your question is a non-issue.

> Notice that all modifications to other peoples code exist in my 
> distribution in the form of patch files, which are automatically applied 
> before the build process begins.

Indeed, this is what the QPL clause 3 asks you, you should be fine.

<disclaimer> i am not in any way related to the ocaml team </disclaimer>

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: [Caml-list] License question: tricky issue

[Xavier Leroy]

> Would the authors/copyright holders consider a tarball containing an
> Ocaml source tarball plus other source code and other source tarballs as
> a distribution of their software or as a derived work? The question is
> tricky due to the non-free public license adopted by Inria originally.
> [...]
> Notice that all modifications to other peoples code exist in my
> distribution in the form of patch files, which are automatically applied
> before the build process begins.

Sven's reply is perfectly correct: by distributing the Caml source
code unmodified, plus modifications as separate patches, you are 100%
in compliance with the letter (and the spirit) of the QPL.

(Moreover, the QPL + LGPL + exceptions combo we use for OCaml is free
software -- even the Debian legal team agrees with that :-)

So, please go ahead with your distributions plans, this is exactly how
we intend the Caml source to be used.

- Xavier Leroy

Re: [Caml-list] License question: tricky issue

[Alessandro Baretta]

Xavier Leroy wrote:
>>Would the authors/copyright holders consider a tarball containing an
>>Ocaml source tarball plus other source code and other source tarballs as
>>a distribution of their software or as a derived work? The question is
>>tricky due to the non-free public license adopted by Inria originally.
>>[...]
>>Notice that all modifications to other peoples code exist in my
>>distribution in the form of patch files, which are automatically applied
>>before the build process begins.

> So, please go ahead with your distributions plans, this is exactly how
> we intend the Caml source to be used.

Thank you very much. I would like to make sure that the "distribution"--one or 
more ocaml tarballs, a bunch of tarballs by various authors, plus some patches 
and scripts from myself--is not considered a "derived work" under the terms of 
the QPL. I would not like this to be the case, as the QPL authorizes the 
original authors to use the "derived works" in non free ways: this is the 
non-freeness in the QPL.

All this sounds very much nonsensical to us programmers, but it might make a 
considerable difference to managers and lawyers.

Alex



-- 
*********************************************************************

Ing. Alessandro Baretta

Studio Baretta
http://studio.baretta.com/

Consulenza Tecnologica e Ingegneria Industriale
Technological Consulting and Industrial Engineering

tel. +39 02 370 111 55
fax. +39 02 370 111 54