On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:07:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:03:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > Ok, I think you're right. That means the QPL is not actually a > > > problem, even if you object to all forced publication requirements. > > > > Can someone spell this out (again?) for my crippled mind? > > > > This might be good fodder for the FAQ. > > The problematic QPL clause only applies as part of a special exception > in the license: certain kinds of derivative works which you don't have > to license under the QPL itself.
I'm sorry, but it appears to me that there is more than one problematic QPL clause: 3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ patches. The following restrictions apply to modifications: This restricts modifications to separate patch files. Furthermore, these restrictions attach to the mere act of modification, and not to distribution of modifications (or a modified version of the work). It is easy to read the DFSG as saying that the above are hunky-dory, but I forward them as points of concern nonetheless, as they are directly relevant to discussions we've been having lately on this list. a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices in the Software. This is fine, except that it attaches to modification and not distribution of modifications that do this. We should encourage licensors to be more clear about this issue, and not attempt to restrict activities that should be protected under Fair Use doctrines. b. When modifications to the Software are released under this license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the initial developer of the Software to distribute your modification in future versions of the Software provided such versions remain available under these terms in addition to any other license(s) of the initial developer. This is a problem. If you license your modifications under the QPL, you give the "initial developer" (often Trolltech AS) a special privilege that is not given to other parties, even if your modifications are so extensive and original that they merit independent copyright protection. (In fact, this special privilege is granted *only* in that case, for in situations where the modifications are so trivial that there is no copyrightable derived work, clause 3b is unnecessary. In the U.S., at least, the seed of copyright can find no root in trivial modifications[1]). As an aside, while researching my position on this issue, I learned that (again, in the U.S.) computer source may have a higher threshold to meet to merit copyrightablilty in the first place; in other words, the formalism of source code may mean that copyright protection would attach to a quantity of fictional prose, but not to an equivalent quantity of source code[2]. I believe it is illegitimate and inimical freedom to grant special privileges in a license to a copyright holder that other receipients of a distributed work do not get, especially since the original copyright holder already has tons of rights that other receipients don't have. If we were to replace "a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted" with something else of value such as "a payment of US $1,000 must be paid"; "the title to the modifier's automobile, if the modifier owns one, must be signed over"; or "a perpetual, non-retractable grant of permission to engage in sexual intercourse with (1) the modifier, if the modifier is female; (2) if the modifer is not female, the modifier's nearest female relative aged 18 years or greater must be extended", then we all would certainly reject such a requirement as DFSG-non-free...wouldn't we? Why, then, are the potential copyrights of free software hackers who modify QPLed works without value? This is an issue I've raised before; I have long wanted a clause that represents a nexus of concerns related to DFSG 1, DFSG 3, DFSG 7, DFSG 8, and DFSG 9. "License must not demand consideration in exchange for permissions granted therein", or something like that. I therefore cannot agree with the theory that QPL clause 6, even if non-free, does not render the license in toto non-DFSG-free, because the posited alternative that avoids clause 6 is to use clause 3. For these reasons, it is my opinion that the QPL is not a Free Software license. To recall my analogy to the U.S. legal system, I would regard any interpretation of the DFSG that permits the QPL to be regarded as Free as violative of the Debian Social Contract, in which we promise that "Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software". [1] Woods v. Bourne Co., 60 F.3d 978, 990 (2d Cir. 1995) "In order for a work to qualify as a derivative work it must be independently copyrightable. [...] The basis for copyright protection contained in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act is originality of authorship." [2] Hearn v. Meyer, 664 F.Supp. 832, 847 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) "It is well understood that authors wishing to express ideas within the context of factual background often can choose from only a limited number of terms. Copyright protection is afforded rarely where a fact permits only a narrow continuum or spectrum of expression." -- G. Branden Robinson | It doesn't matter what you are Debian GNU/Linux | doing, emacs is always overkill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Stephen J. Carpenter http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgpkYIAoxSaTN.pgp
Description: PGP signature