Hello, I just heard about this tentative to make the QPL non-free, and i am a bit worried that this will come to be decided without me being aware of it, since i do maintain a package which is partly under the QPL, the ocaml package. And i wonder if it will come to happen that you will all silently decide that the QPL is non-free days before the sarge release, and leave me no other choice than have the package removed from main.
I feel that elemental courtesy would have been to inform all maintainers of pure QPLed packages of this discussions, and maybe keep them informed of the likely outcome and timeframe for taking action. But then, it seems the debian project has no problem threating most of his developers as dirt. And yes, Branden, if you chose to reply to me on this, please refrain from using any agressive language and bashing me on irc. Since you are ignoring me anyway, basic decency, which i still have hopes you have not lost, since despite everything i rather like you, anyway, basic decency on your part would mean that if you ignore me, you also don't bash me in public without me having chance to retort. >Here is a proposed summary of the QPL 1.0, based on the relevant threads >on debian-legal. Suggestions are welcome, as well as statements of >whether or not this DRAFT summary accurately represents your position. > >Please note that until other debian-legal participants indicate their >position on this DRAFT summary, it does not necessarily represent the >debian-legal consensus. For this reason, I am sending this only to >debian-legal, for further discussion. Sure, but could you point me to a summary on the expected position ? I don't really have time to follow all this thread, but it affects me directly. Also, i would really appreciate if any statement to that effect, even if we consider the QPL free, could be accompanied by recomendations in which to solve the accompanied problems. >--- Begin DRAFT debian-legal summary of the QPL 1.0 --- > >The members of the debian-legal mailing list have examined the Q Public >License (QPL), version 1.0, and determined that software licensed solely >under this license is not Free Software according to the Debian Free >Software Guidelines (DFSG). Previous (long) discutions about this never doubted the freeness of the QPL, just its GPL compatibility. All have agreed to that back then during the KDE controversy, so i would like all proponent of such a draft to argument why the below points are problematic now, but where acceptable then. >* Clause 6c requires modified versions that are not distributed to the >public to be provided to the original developer on request. This >requirement fails the "Desert Island" test and the "Dissident" test (see >sections 9a, 9b, and 12o of the DFSG FAQ at >http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html). DFSG-free licenses must >allow non-distributed or privately-distributed modifications, and cannot >require distribution to anyone, except for requiring that source be >distributed to those who receive a binary. Ok, sorry, but i have the strong feeling this is pure bullshit. I also have some doubts about the correctness of those two tests, particularly as to their appropriateness to the actual software world. Ok, let's go over this, before i go back to the tests. Section 3. means you can make patch modifications, the only condition being that you allow upstream to incorporate those changes back into the main software, and licence the result either under the original licence or another one of their choosing. The aim of this point is for upstream to be able to incorporate the changes, which they couldn't do if they also want to licence said software under other, possibly non-free licence, for paying customers and such. This is i believe something the APL (apple) and NPL (netscape) and probably many others also do. The effect is also similar of the FSF asking for copyright assignement (and i never received that symbolic dollar they promised me), as well as the GPL mention of version N or later, where we only have the good faith of the FSF to protect us. That said, this concerns only source based distributions, section 4 allows for binary modifications, which is something the previous ocaml licence lacked. This is mostly ok, the source + patch modification can be distributed, and the modifier has to place all modification under the QPL, and make the source available, either directly, or when asked. We may regret the absence of the 3 year time limit as the GPL does, but this is all rather standard, and the modifier just need to give away the source with the binary to be left free of that obligation, since then the onus of providing the sources falls to the recipient of the modifications in case he shall chose to redistribute it. Notice also, and this is i believe important to the desert isle test, that the cost of source distribution, can be charged by the modifier to the recipient. Now, let's go to Section 6, which is the one problematic here. The section 6 speak of modified versions or software linked with the QPLed software. 6a. is again a repeat of section 4, meaning that the recipient of said software needs to be able to have access to the source code, but again the cost can be charged to the recipient. 6b i don't really understand. Maybe it has to do with making modification which are not under the QPL or something such ? This seems rather strange to me, and i am dubious of this interpretation. Let's see what the annotated QPL at : http://www.trolltech.com/licenses/qpl-annotated.html as to say about this : This ensures that all recipients have the same rights, no matter how or from whom they received the software. The easiest way to provide this explicit license is to allow recipients to grant the same license to others. If the recipients of your software wishes to do so they may re-distribute your software without anyone having to pay money either to them or to you. Well, my understanding of this is that you have the right to relicence it under another licence which respects the above, maybe especially designed to relicence modifications under the GPL or something ? Now, let's come to section 6c, which is at cause here. First see what the annotated QPL has to say : This is to avoid problems with companies that try to hide the source. If we get to know about it we want to be able to get hold of the code even if we are not users. In this way, if somebody tries to cheat and we get to know we can release the code to the public. My understanding is that this applies only to code not provided under pristine source + patch, and possibly under another licence or for internal usage. It states that if you make a modification, that is enough public for the upstream author to know about it, and he requests the modification to be sent to him, then this has to be done. One could regret here that there is no mention on who covers the cost though, which may be a worthy addition here. Since if the modifier may recover the cost of the data transfer, or simply state that the cost of the transfer is covered by the source code requester, as in the above clauses, then the desert island test would fall by itself, but more to that below. But maybe this is somewhat implied here. I also find the lack of mention of licence of these provided modifications somewhat disturbing. Ok, now to the desert island test, provided the cost of the data transfer is on the shoulder of the source code requester, there is no real problem, as it in no way limits the offline hacker on his south pacific paradise island if the upstream author has to travel there to make his request known and come back with the source code. As for the chinese dissident test, well, the same could be said, if the upstream author requesting the code has to travel to china, and contact the author in a hidden way, to get the source, so be it. Nobody ever said that it has to be easy to get the source, and one could argue that the cost of the data transfer include all proper assurance as to the security of said chinese dissident. A shame that the cost is no clearly mentioned in section 6c though, so maybe asking for clarification on this from Trolltech would solve this problem. As long as the cost is reasonable though, but that is implied in all the above clauses anyway. I may even ask my upstream author to make this clarification in case it should be necessary. To conclude on this the whole point is moot anyway, as sections 3 and 4 are enough to make the whole software DFSG free, and section 6 can be ignored altogether. It is a shame though that the language lacks enough clarity though. >* The license contains a "choice of venue" clause, which states that >"Disputes shall be settled by Amsterdam City Court.". Since in many >legal jurisdictions, a party that fails to appear and defend themselves >in the courts of the given jurisdiction will automatically lose such a >dispute, such "choice of venue" clauses place an undue burden on the >recipient of the software in the face of any legal action (whether >legitimate or not), and are therefore considered non-free. Such clauses >also fail the "Tentacles of Evil" test (see section 9c of the DFSG FAQ >at http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), since the original >developer can bring many unfounded legal actions against distributors >and force them to travel to a given location to defend themselves, which >would effectively remove the right to distribute the software. Well, this may be fine, but is a bit one-sided. You take all the view of defending the modifier, but don't care at all for the upstream author. This clause is there to protect him, against people making illegal use of the software, that is making modifications or reusing it without complying to the licence. You find it unaceptable that the judgement must be held in versaille, france as is the case for the ocaml package, where the ocaml development team is, but you would have no problem in having some huge US company with a batallion of legal experts use the code without cumplying to the licence, and having to sue him in a court of his chosing, and given the way the US judicial system works, there is not really a way to expect to get justice done for either a lone developer, a small company, or a public institution like the INRIA to get the illegal modifier to respect the licence. And if the US court problem doesn't convince you, what about modifications held in some obscure dictatorial state or whatever, where the modifier is owned by the brother of the dictator, who is also in charge of the death squadrons or whatever. What protection do you have in those cases ? I believe it is reasonable to place the disputes to be solved in a court that is not only available to the upstream author, but which has rather good chances to give a reasonable judgement, unlike the alternatives. And france has free jurist to stand for those who can't pay for defense, and also the judges will probably not open unfounded charges, and the initial decision stage of this, a letter exchange would probably be enough to stop all the scenarios you mention above. I am no legal expert though, so someone familiar with the french system would have to stand up here and confirm this, but i as _contributor_ to the upstream package, would feel more at ease knowing that any dispute would be handled by a court i know about and has at least a chance of giving a real ruling, and not one dominated by money and other such unjuridical things, as one is come to expect from US courts. >For software currently licensed under the QPL 1.0 whose authors desire >its inclusion in Debian, debian-legal recommends licensing that software This is a lie. debian-legal does not recomend such thing yet. but well, it is a draft. Again, a status report of the actual adherance to this draft would be welcome. Who is in favor of this, and how does the chance stand to have this draft approved ? >under a Free Software license such as the GNU GPL, either in place of or >as an alternative to the QPL 1.0. And, could you please provide also some more realistic recomendations, as to how the problems mentioned above can be solved ? And please, either delay the conclusion after the sarge release, or make it not apply to it, or give us ample time to stand by it. Friendly, Sven Luther
