On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:10:23AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-07-20 03:06:22 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >DFSG 1) it was claimed that giving the linked items back to upstream > >on > >request is considered a fee, which may invalidate this licence. How > >much of > >this claim is realistic, and does it constitute a fee ? After all, > >you lose > >nothing if you give it to upstream, so it doesn't cost you. > > You lose your control over the work, if you are obliged to license it > freely or give it to upstream. 6b kicks in, requiring us to license it > freely to them. This seems particularly ironic, as author control over > the work is often given as a motive for using the QPL, which is > something they seem to be denying other authors.
Well, it is only a very minor lack of control, and one i would say basic courtesy would cover anyway, but since everyone is not expected to be courteous, it had to be added to the licence. > I'm still thinking whether this is clearly a fee, but I'm not sure why > you claim it would invalidate the licence. Well, let's reconsider my argument elsewhere. The cost to the modificator to respect 6c is nil. He has to distribute the code under a free licence of his chosing, and the cost is covered by the requestor, as covered by 6a. So, can something be considered a fee if it costs nothing ? > >So my understanding is that this only applies with the stuff that > >links to the > >QPL covered work. Which would mean that the QPL covered work is a > >library. > > When I read this bit first of all, I thought "wow, elegant hack". > Sadly, it doesn't work, as it limits permitted modifications, because > we could never make a QPL'd part of ocaml into a library. I think most > -legal readers get upset about that not satisfying DFSG 3. Yeah, that is indeed a problem. Now, you can make parts of ocaml into a library, you just need to abide into the restriction of the QPL, don't you ? > Now, if the LGPL is applied to all ocaml libraries, including modified > ocamls present and future, we have an elegant hack to remove the QPL > from ocaml. ;-) well, it doesn't work like that, bu you already know about this. > Also, this applies to stuff not covered by the licence that links with > it. Is this contamination of other software? (Compare DFSG 9) Contamination in the DFSG 9 only covers contamination by aggregation on a same CD, or the GPL would fail DFSG 9, in which case we are facing a world of troubles. > >I will go over the DFSG points in a while, but let's first mention > >another > >point. Altough the Social contract places our priorities at our users > >and > >free software, where do the upstream author enter in consideration ? > >The > >upstream authors without with debian would hardly exist. > > If you feel the SC inadequately protects upstream authors, then maybe > you want to change the SC. Yeah, and go over a huge flamewar in debian-vote, no thanks. I only expect that we provide upstream authors elementary courtesy and respect, what some posters here don't do. > >[...] may fear the violation of the ocaml licence by entities such as > >sun or microsoft, which would gain from the ocaml technology in both > >java and > >C#, and fear that a court of venue in the US may render any chance of > >getting > >justice void, given the money governed US legal system. [...] > > AIUI, they could sue the French arms of Sun or Microsoft and keep the > venue in France, even without this clause. I hope they have a more > realistic motivation. Ok, like said, this was an interpretation for me. The real justification is that they were ok to freely distribute ocaml, but want to do so with as little hurdle to themself as possible. > >Well, nothing in the DFSG makes mention of this kind of legal > >problems, so we > >can hardly claim that this would make it DFSG-non-free, even though > >we may > >have more or less justified to think so. > > My current thought is that it is a DFSG 1 problem, resticting free > redistribution, but I'm still listening. Err, 1 Free Redistribution The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. Could you be a bit more explicit ? I seriously fail to see how this even remotely interacts with legal troubles. There is no restriction against giving away the software, nor does it impose a royalty or fee. Friendly, Sven Luther
