[Caml-list] ocaml compiler license

[Caml-list] ocaml compiler license

[Alexey Egorov]

Hello,

how do I distribute modified version of ocaml compiler?
Is license requres me to only use patches (which makes using pulbic github repo for my changes nearly impossible)?

Thanks.

Re: [Caml-list] ocaml compiler license

[Adrien Nader]

Hi,

It has been explained on the caml-list in the past that the important
part was to be able to tell the two apart if I remember correctly.

In any case, git makes it trivial to get a set of patches for you
changes so I don't see an issue there.

-- 
Adrien Nader

Re: [Caml-list] ocaml compiler license

[Alexey Egorov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 178 bytes --]

 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)?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 217 bytes --]

RE: [Caml-list] ocaml compiler license

[David Allsopp]

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

Re: [Caml-list] ocaml compiler license

[Fabrice Le Fessant]

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".

Anyway, many people are distributing modified OCaml versions under
GIT, and INRIA has never complained about it, to the best of my
knowledge.

--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

Re: [Caml-list] ocaml compiler license

[Milan Stanojević]

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Fabrice Le Fessant
<Fabrice.Le_fessant@inria.fr> 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".

I thought that the intent was to make sure that modified software
can't be mistaken for original one, hence "separate form".

But, reading here
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html

"Q Public License (QPL), Version 1.0 (#QPL)

This is a non-copyleft free software license which is incompatible
with the GNU GPL. It also causes major practical inconvenience,
because modified sources can only be distributed as patches."

This seems like a much stronger reading.

Maybe INRIA is willing to amend the license to explicitly allow any
form of redistribution, not only patches.

Re: [Caml-list] ocaml compiler license

[Adrien Nader]

On Thu, Mar 05, 2015, Milan Stanojević wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Fabrice Le Fessant
> <Fabrice.Le_fessant@inria.fr> 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".
> 
> I thought that the intent was to make sure that modified software
> can't be mistaken for original one, hence "separate form".
> 
> But, reading here
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
> 
> "Q Public License (QPL), Version 1.0 (#QPL)
> 
> This is a non-copyleft free software license which is incompatible
> with the GNU GPL. It also causes major practical inconvenience,
> because modified sources can only be distributed as patches."
> 
> This seems like a much stronger reading.
> 
> Maybe INRIA is willing to amend the license to explicitly allow any
> form of redistribution, not only patches.

GNU is a bit biaised here and the "license-list" page is short and
(mostly) to the point: it covers a large number of licenses and doesn't
use many words for each to keep the length sane.

It's not the first time this question has been raised so maybe it would
be worth adding a sentence about that.
(that said I'm under the impression that you can't change the wording of
the QPL by copyright but I can't check that since the trolltech website
seems down and I don't have time to search for a copy of the license
elsewhere).

-- 
Adrien Nader

RE: [Caml-list] ocaml compiler license

[David Allsopp]

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

Re: [Caml-list] ocaml compiler license

[Roberto Di Cosmo]

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.

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                        

RE: [Caml-list] ocaml compiler license

[David Allsopp]

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

Re: [Caml-list] ocaml compiler license

[Roberto Di Cosmo]

David, you are right: one cannot "change" the terms of a licence used
on a piece of code after releasing this piece of code under this licence.
But we are talking about "interpretation" of these terms, which is quite
a different story.

If you look at FSF/OSI/<whatever other external entity including me> to know
whether a git branch is fine as an implementation of "separate", you only get an
opinion... maybe a well respected opinion, but just an opinion that may become
the subject of debate later on. And avoiding debate is a desirable thing.

If Inria says publicly (e.g. on this mailing list): "for us it's fine to see
OCaml derivatives developed and published as separate git branches", then you
get the work owner's explicit statement that this practice is acceptable for the
only entity entitled to enforce the licence.  And that's the end of the story:
simple, clear, undebatable, no hassle.

Cheers

--
Roberto

On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 09:08:54AM +0000, David Allsopp wrote:
> 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

-- 
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                        

RE: [Caml-list] ocaml compiler license

[David Allsopp]

Roberto Di Cosmo wrote:
> David, you are right: one cannot "change" the terms of a licence used on a
> piece of code after releasing this piece of code under this licence.
> But we are talking about "interpretation" of these terms, which is quite a
> different story.

Yes, but the copyright holder does not get to dictate the interpretation.

> If you look at FSF/OSI/<whatever other external entity including me> to
> know whether a git branch is fine as an implementation of "separate", you
> only get an opinion... maybe a well respected opinion, but just an opinion
> that may become the subject of debate later on. And avoiding debate is a
> desirable thing.

Absolutely - and hence why it's sensible to ask!

> If Inria says publicly (e.g. on this mailing list): "for us it's fine to
> see OCaml derivatives developed and published as separate git branches",
> then you get the work owner's explicit statement that this practice is
> acceptable for the only entity entitled to enforce the licence.  And
> that's the end of the story: simple, clear, undebatable, no hassle.

Yes, I agree - sorry, I made my point unclearly. The point I was making is that if Inria were to say "no, we don't accept that as satisfying the licence" then that is just their opinion. You can still do it, you just know that you're likely to end up in court testing the licence if you do. The arbiter in a difference of opinion on interpretation is the legal system, not the copyright holder.


David