RE: [Caml-list] ocaml compiler license

[David Allsopp <dra-news@metastack.com>]

Roberto Di Cosmo write:
> Just one line on all this: as correctly hinted otherwise, the copyright
> can only be enforced by the owner of the work (that is Inria in this
> case); so, if a doubt arises about the meaning of some terms of the
> licence arises, you should not look at what the FSF or the OSI or some
> other lawyers say, but ask the owner of the work for clarifications.

Only as a legal aside, that is a *sensible* thing to do, but it is *not* how copyright works. Once you've released something covered by a licence, the terms are only clear as exactly what you've put in the licence. You don't get to say on later enquiry, "oh, I didn't think of that - no, you should interpret it this way". That's what courts (i.e. legal tests) are for and why licences should be written by lawyers. And at that point it *is* useful to look at OSI and FSF opinion, because what a court will take great interest in is legal precedent or, in its absence, what everyone else using those terms thinks.


David

> Cheers
> 
> --
> Roberto
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 08:45:28AM +0000, David Allsopp wrote:
> > Fabrice Le Fessant wrote:
> > > From the QPL 1.0 license in OCaml sources:
> > >
> > > "... distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from
> > > the Software, such as patches."
> > >
> > > In GIT, the software itself is a set of patches, so it's not so
> > > clear for me that if the modifications are another set of patches,
> > > there are in a "separate form".
> >
> > This is why I said that it should be done in a separate branch. You're
> happy with the idea that the file system (or the URL) provides separation
> (i.e. one URL for the ocaml tarball, one URL for the patch file) - I'd
> make the legal argument that git is simply a file system (when you remove
> the porcelain, the plumbing *is* simply a file system, after all!) and a
> git branch name provides the same separation as the two separate files.
> >
> > If one is going to argue that git branches do not provide separation,
> then do we start talking in terms of needing the main sources and the
> patch on separate harddisks; separate servers; separate internets? :o)
> Indeed, with git clone {your-ocaml-repository} -b master --single-branch
> you can clone the repository *without* downloading your patch branch at
> all (i.e. the unmodified OCaml sources) so I would assert that git
> definitely satisfies the "separate form" requirement.
> >
> > However, the QPL does not rigidly define "separate" and uses the woolly
> term "such as" for its example, so that argument could only be resolved by
> being tested.
> >
> > > Anyway, many people are distributing modified OCaml versions under
> > > GIT, and INRIA has never complained about it, to the best of my
> knowledge.
> >
> > Which is a much stronger argument, given that pull requests are
> > allowed for the OCaml compiler, from public repos :o)
> >
> >
> > David
> >
> > > --Fabrice
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:07 AM, David Allsopp
> > > <dra-news@metastack.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Alexey Egorov wrote:
> > > >> Hi Adrien,
> > > >>
> > > >> thanks for your reply.
> > > >>
> > > >> But wouldn't publicly avalable github repo with modified sources
> > > >> violate license (just because non-patch/diff version is publicly
> > > >> available)?
> > > >
> > > > IANAL, but if you put all your changes in a separate branch on
> > > > your own
> > > git repo (forked from the official Git mirror) then you are
> > > literally storing a set of patches - the ability to download the
> > > entire distribution as one whole (or even as a .tar.gz file, say on
> > > GitHub) is just a convenience provided by the software, it's not
> > > what you're actually providing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
> > > > https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
> > > > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> > > > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Fabrice LE FESSANT
> > > Chercheur en Informatique
> > > INRIA Paris Rocquencourt -- OCamlPro Programming Languages and
> > > Distributed Systems
> >
> > --
> > Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
> > https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
> > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
> 
> --
> Roberto Di Cosmo
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Professeur               En delegation a l'INRIA
> PPS                      E-mail: roberto@dicosmo.org
> Universite Paris Diderot WWW  : http://www.dicosmo.org
> Case 7014                Tel  : ++33-(0)1-57 27 92 20
> 5, Rue Thomas Mann
> F-75205 Paris Cedex 13   Identica: http://identi.ca/rdicosmo
> FRANCE.                  Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdicosmo
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Attachments:
> MIME accepted, Word deprecated
>       http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Office location:
> 
> Bureau 3020 (3rd floor)
> Batiment Sophie Germain
> Avenue de France
> Metro Bibliotheque Francois Mitterrand, ligne 14/RER C
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> GPG fingerprint 2931 20CE 3A5A 5390 98EC 8BFC FCCA C3BE 39CB 12D3