Re: caml-light licence question.
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 04:35:20PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I am trying to package caml-light which comes with the attached licence. My understanding of it is that it is not distributable by debian, since it allow distribution of modified works only as pristine source + patches, not binaries, and i will be going to discuss this with the upstream author(s). But is there something else i might have missed ? I don't see why it shouldn't be distributed in non-free. Even if you don't immediately intend to use a patch it might be better to only distribute a source package. That way you would be ready to make changes if and when necessary (someone might find a security bug). Well, technically, the fact of adding the debian directory, and to move the installation directory is considered enough of a change to make distribution of binaries illegal. That was at least the advice i got when first packaging ocaml, which had the same licence but which was later moved to a free licence. So binary distribution is not possible, and i don't consider a source package worth the effort. Also, i would had to patch, since the upstream source doesn't build right now anyway, but then they are aware of this and are planning a new release that fixes this. Notice also that my packaging effort came as a request from upstream, since caml-light is widely used for entry exams in french ingenieurs schools, and student have difficulty installing it (a thread on debian-user-french started all this). So, i think upstream can make some effort here and change the licence. Especially since ocaml, which is a later development from caml-light, has a more liberal licence. BTW, what should i understand of the english sentence construction of the user undertakes to apply to obtain It sound very much un-english, but then, maybe i just misunderstand. It looks weird to me, too, but I think it's semantically void in this context. The text describes several types of permitted distribution and then (as I understand it) says you must ask for permission if you want to distribute in any other way, which is true anyway without the strange attempt at making the user agree to this condition. Maybe just a translation error, but it sounds strange even in french. I was told one time by the upstream that INRIA's legal folk were rather uncompetent about this kind of stuff. Anyway, thanks about your response. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: caml-light licence question.
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:42:43PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote: An additional question, is this the actual license? Or is it an english translation of the actual license? [Looks like it was written by a non-english common law attorney.] On Wed, 14 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote: My understanding of it is that it is not distributable by debian, since it allow distribution of modified works only as pristine source + patches, not binaries, That's correct. BTW, what should i understand of the english sentence construction of the user undertakes to apply to obtain It sound very much un-english, but then, maybe i just misunderstand. It's english, but it's a rather unholy application of the vauge principles of english sentence construction. The clause means in effect: The user must obtain the expressed approval of INRIA to distribute the software outside the scope of this license. (Which is basically a no-op anyway.) Ok, if nothing else, i will suggest a change of wording here. Distribution of derivative works obtained by modifying the sofware or integrating it in another software is allowed only if the distribution consists of the unmodified, original source files for the software, along with difference files (patches) to be applied by the user of the derivative work. As you've already pointed out, this prohibits us from distributing modified binaries, and fails DFSG #3 and #4. Would adding a and is allowed to distribute binaries resulting from building this patched source be enough to make it free ? As regards any other type of distribution, the user undertakes to apply to obtain the express approval of INRIA. This is the no-op explained above. Yes. Please note that the software is a product currently being developed. INRIA shall not be responsible in any way concerning conformity, and in particular shall not be liable should the software not comply with the requirements of the user, INRIA not being obliged to repair any possible direct or indirect damage. Weird NO WARRANTY clause. :))) INRIA freely grants the right to distribute bytecode executable files generated by the Caml Light compiler (camlc). Binaries of the Caml Light run-time system (camlrun), with the sole condition that the documentation include the following statement: This software includes the Caml Light run-time system, which is copyright 1991-1997, INRIA. Executable files that include the Caml Light interactive system (such as those generated by the camlmktop command) can also be distributed freely, with the sole condition that the distribution includes the following statement: This software includes the Caml Light interactive system, which is copyright 1991-1997, INRIA. The requirement to include the copyright notice looks fine to me. [Notice in documentation or in distribution.] As far as I can tell, with the exception of the ability to distribute modified binaries (the qmail problem), the license seems to be Free. Yes. You may also want to suggest that the upstream author(s) consider using a more established license that more conventionally states their wishes instead of using what appears to be a home-grown license. Yes, that is what i will do, i will not make a source only package, it is not worth the effort in my eyes, and since it is upstream who has come to me asking about packaging this, they should make the effort of changing the licence, i think. Anyway, a later development of this, ocaml, which comes under LGPL and QPL, is under a freer licence, so there should be no problem. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: caml-light licence question.
On Thu, 15 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:42:43PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote: On Wed, 14 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote: Distribution of derivative works obtained by modifying the sofware or integrating it in another software is allowed only if the distribution consists of the unmodified, original source files for the software, along with difference files (patches) to be applied by the user of the derivative work. As you've already pointed out, this prohibits us from distributing modified binaries, and fails DFSG #3 and #4. Would adding a and is allowed to distribute binaries resulting from building this patched source be enough to make it free ? I think that whole paragraph needs to be re-written, as the distribution of modified binaries seems to conflict with the is allowed only if... unmodified original source files phrase. I'm not quite sure exactly what they would prefer to see as far as source code and modification availability (and if they want copyleft, it would basically be the same conditions as the GPL v2.) since it is upstream who has come to me asking about packaging this, they should make the effort of changing the licence, i think. Good luck with that. Feel free to refer them to -legal if they need clarification, and thanks for veing diligent about the licensing. Don Armstrong -- I'd sign up in a hot second for any cellular company whose motto was: We're less horrible than a root canal with a cold chisel. -- Cory Doctorow http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgplbLdHnn4Mm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: caml-light licence question.
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 03:15:35AM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote: On Thu, 15 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote: On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:42:43PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote: On Wed, 14 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote: Distribution of derivative works obtained by modifying the sofware or integrating it in another software is allowed only if the distribution consists of the unmodified, original source files for the software, along with difference files (patches) to be applied by the user of the derivative work. As you've already pointed out, this prohibits us from distributing modified binaries, and fails DFSG #3 and #4. Would adding a and is allowed to distribute binaries resulting from building this patched source be enough to make it free ? I think that whole paragraph needs to be re-written, as the distribution of modified binaries seems to conflict with the is allowed only if... unmodified original source files phrase. I'm not quite sure exactly what they would prefer to see as far as source code and modification availability (and if they want copyleft, it would basically be the same conditions as the GPL v2.) I think back in those days (the caml-light/ocaml fork was in 1995 or so, and the ocaml licence change was in 1999) they were most worried about : 1) people taking their code, making some minor modifications and releasing it as their own. INRIA is a research body, and recognition is important to them. 2) people applying random patches distributing the binaries without clearly telling about the patches, and users sending unreproducible bugreports caused by these patches. But again, ocaml is the live branch, caml-light has stalled since then and is only still used because it was adopted by the french ingenieur's school for the exams, and there is all the written material and such. So my opinion would be that there should be no problem in modifying that licence, but then, i have not yet heard back from upstream. since it is upstream who has come to me asking about packaging this, they should make the effort of changing the licence, i think. Good luck with that. Feel free to refer them to -legal if they need clarification, and thanks for veing diligent about the licensing. Ok, no problem, it is funny that this surface again, i am sure there is a lot of good argumentation about this in the 1999 or so mailing list archive too, since that was the date of ocaml licence change, in which we were involved. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: caml-light licence question.
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I am trying to package caml-light which comes with the attached licence. My understanding of it is that it is not distributable by debian, since it allow distribution of modified works only as pristine source + patches, not binaries, and i will be going to discuss this with the upstream author(s). But is there something else i might have missed ? I don't see why it shouldn't be distributed in non-free. Even if you don't immediately intend to use a patch it might be better to only distribute a source package. That way you would be ready to make changes if and when necessary (someone might find a security bug). BTW, what should i understand of the english sentence construction of the user undertakes to apply to obtain It sound very much un-english, but then, maybe i just misunderstand. It looks weird to me, too, but I think it's semantically void in this context. The text describes several types of permitted distribution and then (as I understand it) says you must ask for permission if you want to distribute in any other way, which is true anyway without the strange attempt at making the user agree to this condition. Edmund
Re: caml-light licence question.
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I am trying to package caml-light which comes with the attached licence. A brief addendum to my previous reply: the non-free package qmail-src might be a good model to follow as qmail has a similar restriction in its licence. Edmund
Re: caml-light licence question.
An additional question, is this the actual license? Or is it an english translation of the actual license? [Looks like it was written by a non-english common law attorney.] On Wed, 14 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote: My understanding of it is that it is not distributable by debian, since it allow distribution of modified works only as pristine source + patches, not binaries, That's correct. BTW, what should i understand of the english sentence construction of the user undertakes to apply to obtain It sound very much un-english, but then, maybe i just misunderstand. It's english, but it's a rather unholy application of the vauge principles of english sentence construction. The clause means in effect: The user must obtain the expressed approval of INRIA to distribute the software outside the scope of this license. (Which is basically a no-op anyway.) Distribution of derivative works obtained by modifying the sofware or integrating it in another software is allowed only if the distribution consists of the unmodified, original source files for the software, along with difference files (patches) to be applied by the user of the derivative work. As you've already pointed out, this prohibits us from distributing modified binaries, and fails DFSG #3 and #4. As regards any other type of distribution, the user undertakes to apply to obtain the express approval of INRIA. This is the no-op explained above. Please note that the software is a product currently being developed. INRIA shall not be responsible in any way concerning conformity, and in particular shall not be liable should the software not comply with the requirements of the user, INRIA not being obliged to repair any possible direct or indirect damage. Weird NO WARRANTY clause. INRIA freely grants the right to distribute bytecode executable files generated by the Caml Light compiler (camlc). Binaries of the Caml Light run-time system (camlrun), with the sole condition that the documentation include the following statement: This software includes the Caml Light run-time system, which is copyright 1991-1997, INRIA. Executable files that include the Caml Light interactive system (such as those generated by the camlmktop command) can also be distributed freely, with the sole condition that the distribution includes the following statement: This software includes the Caml Light interactive system, which is copyright 1991-1997, INRIA. The requirement to include the copyright notice looks fine to me. [Notice in documentation or in distribution.] As far as I can tell, with the exception of the ability to distribute modified binaries (the qmail problem), the license seems to be Free. You may also want to suggest that the upstream author(s) consider using a more established license that more conventionally states their wishes instead of using what appears to be a home-grown license. Don Armstrong -- America was far better suited to be the World's Movie Star. The world's tequila-addled pro-league bowler. The world's acerbic bi-polar stand-up comedian. Anything but a somber and tedious nation of socially responsible centurions. -- Bruce Sterling, _Distraction_ p122 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpTjCCGB7jy9.pgp Description: PGP signature
