On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:08:14PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:54:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > Sven Luther wrote: > > > > Well, so what. This only proves that there are licences which allow > > > > proprietary product, and i would never voluntary release code under > > > > such a > > > > licence, and they are other who don't. > > > > > > Neither would I. However, my issue with the QPL is not that I would > > > want to take the software proprietary, but that I might want to > > > > But Brian's interest seem to be. > > > > > distribute Free Software between a few people, giving those people all > > > the freedoms expected for Free Software. > > > > And ? What is the problem with that ? You can do it, the only point is that > > you have, upon request to give the upstream author (probably anyone in the > > chain of upstream authors) a copy of it if they request it. This can only > > be a > > problem with the DFSG 1, if you consider such a thing a fee. But since the > > cost to you is nil, i wonder if we can consider it as a fee, and also i > > consider the fairness involved in refusing to give this to upstream that he > > requests, while you had no problem in taking his work for free. > > We're not taking his work for free, because he didn't offer it for free. > That's the problem.
And ? What royalty or fee did you pay him ? > > > If I take a GPLed program, modify it, and distribute the modified > > > version among a few people, then as long as those people also have the > > > source (or an offer for the source), then no one is being deprived of > > > Freedom, and the software is not proprietary. > > > > So what, how does that change with the QPL ? > > Because someone else can come in and legally demand the changes I've made. Bullshit. but please look at the newly started thread and alaysis. > > > That said, I personally think that under almost all circumstances, it is > > > a good idea to provide your changes upstream. > > > > So, ... > > Good ideas in the general case are not necessarily good when compelled by > licence terms. So ... > > Anyway, notice that QPL 6 doesn't speak about modification, but work which > > link to a QPLed library. Not exactly the same thing. > > Which is even worse, because the QPL is then compelling distribution of > essentially unrelated items. If dynamic linking doesn't produce a > derivative work, the QPL is overstretching it's bounds by quite a bit. And you ignored me arguing repeteadly that a derived work and a modified work are not the same thing, right ? Again this speaks highly of your capacity to follow up here and make informed arguments. > > > >>>Also, i also doubt that this is a way debian is confortable goind, and > > > >>>that > > > >>>allowance of proprietary modifications over other considerations is > > > >>>the path > > > >>>we are conforable threading. > > > >> > > > >>You doubt that which is the way Debian is comfortable going? > > > > > > > > To make allowance to proprietary modification hoarder, like you seem to > > > > be. > > > > > > Again, modifications shared amonst a group, with everyone in that group > > > having Freedom, are not proprietary. > > > > Well, sure, but what is your moral ground for refusing the same > > modifications > > to upstream ? > > What's your moral ground for asserting that upstream has a right to my > modifications? What is your moral ground that he has not ? Elemental courtesy and decency sure would fall into play here. > > > >>>>offers lots of permission, and asks nothing. It's more generous than > > > >>>>"fair". The GPL is "fair": it offers many permissions, but some of > > > >>>>them can only be exercised if you pass the same permissions on to > > > >>>>others. That is, it's a copyleft. But it's probably the most > > > >>>>restrictive you can be and still be "fair". > > > >>> > > > >>>Whatever. you want to modify ocaml, and not give back your changes to > > > >>>the > > > >>>community. You have no sympathy from me, neither probably from a waste > > > >>>majority of the debian project. > > > >>> > > > >>>Also you lying, claiming consensus, while there is no such thing, > > > >>>doesn't > > > >>>endear you to me. > > > >> > > > >>I don't think personal insults really help anything. What I see is a > > > > > > > > Well, you claimed there was a consensus, while there is clearly no such > > > > thing. > > > > Thus it is a lie intended to get the maintainer to take the course of > > > > action > > > > you want through FUD, or at best a misinformed claim you should > > > > apologize for. > > > > > > The consensus on debian-legal seems to be strongly against the QPL. > > > > Well, i see disenting voices in that conversation, and the consensus you > > mention seems to be one of assertion, as it is quite lacking in analysis and > > real arguments, don't you think. > > Yes, I do see that quite a bit on one side of the discussion. Thanks, again you can only reject those accusation by counter attacking. Please prove me wrong and make a valuable argumentation in the new thread i have started. > > > have. Feel free to rebut the arguments of others, but please do not > > > call people ignorant or accuse them of not reading the license. > > > > I have, and you didn't respond to them when i first voiced them, and have to > > this date not yet done so. > > > > > >>The question of whether the QPL is free appears to have firm consensus > > > >>from everyone involved in the debate, instead of standing on the > > > >>sidelines and screaming. > > > > > > > > A, a consensus is one where there is no discordant voice, right ? > > > > > > Consensus is stronger than a simple majority, but it does not > > > necessarily unanimous consensus. > > > > Consensus: a general agreement about a matter of opinion. > > > > Mmm. > > Mmm indeed. You are aware that "general agreement" != "unanimity"? "In > general" meaning "usually, but not always"? And at what point do you put general agreement ? I have seen two persons disagreing, me and matt garrett, and a few which disagreed but were afraid to participate here, and i well understand them (i even got one "you shouldn 't have listened to the debian-legal morons" kind of comment from another DD, and it is publicly available this time). But how much agreed to it, are you sure that there more than a handfull, and at what percentage would be the disagreeing then ? around 20 % or so ? Would this mean general aggreement ? And what about all those who don't have time to loose stupidly here ? > > > > What much more ? And what do you loose if upstream is allowed to use > > > > your code > > > > in the main product, and thus everyone profits ? Again, only a code > > > > hoarder > > > > would reject this kind of clause, and as thus get no sympathy from me. > > > > > > The QPL allows the original developer an all-permissive license, > > > allowing them to put your code in their proprietary product. Between > > > that, and the patch clause designed to prevent forking, it seems to me > > > like the real code hoarders are those releasing code under the QPL. > > > > "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." > > > > You don't give a free blank check here, you only give the right for the code > > to be integrated back in the original software, and in the case of dual > > licencing of said software, like in both the ocaml and Qt case, you give the > > right to have the _SAME_ software also relicenced under the other licence, > > thus allowing upstream to not have to handle a split patch. In no way does > > Upstream doesn't have to handle a split tree, they just don't integrate > anything they haven't got their permission grant or copyright assignment > for. Ok. But they can't reuse the modification then, and all the free software community looses then. > For someone who is very quick to accuse others of not reading the rest of > the thread, you're *incredibly* good at forgetting what people have > previously told you. Given the amount of bullshit i have been told, well, one little minor lapse can be acceptable, and at least i accept my error, while others just don't. Friendly, Sven Luther
