On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:21:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:29:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > But again, the DFSG makes no provision whatsoever for this kind of > > > > things. > > > > So in general, you believe it's ok to inflict all kinds of risks on > > > users who exercise their rights on software in main, so long as the DFSG > > > doesn't explicitly prohibit them? > > > No, but these are hypothetical risks which i have some doubts will happen. > > Like they say here, 0-risk is impossible to obtain, there will always be > > some > > risk. Still the DFSG are our guidelines for what we consider free, if > > lawsutis > > are part of it, we need to add a new DFSG entry about it, and go through the > > voting and 3:1 majority requirement and everything. > > > Or clearly add a note to the DFSG that we feel free to add any random > > additional constraint at our whim. > > > > Forget these inane arguments about what the DFSG does or doesn't > > > prohibit; why would we WANT to expose our users to licenses like this? > > > Why not ? And do you consider seriously that the risk involved is a real > > one ? > > Or just empty speculation ? > > Is the risk of being sued for including small amounts of GPL code in > your binary-only application a real risk? > > What's the difference between a "real" risk and a "hypothetical" risk, > until someone actually gets sued?
Well can you propose a real example of what we are considering here ? An example for which upstream sues an random user over the QPL. Also such a case were we would honestly stand on the users said, and not say, he violated the licence, he deserves what he gets. And then, do you honestly believe such a case would happen, and that it is common enough for us to worry about it. > The bright line that most followers of debian-legal appear to conform to > is "the licenses say that you can exercise the freedoms listed in the DFSG". Ok, but the choice of venue issues stops none of those freedoms. > This is not zero-risk, because nothing in life is zero-risk; the > copyright holder could be acting in bad faith, or you could be sued by a > third party for patent infringement, or even for copyright infringement. > The point is that we don't want our users to be exposed to risks *by the > license*. So you are hiding behind hypothetical harrasing upstream authors, over a clause which may or may not be binding. What if i sue debian because the GPL non-warranty close is illegal in my country ? As it seems to be the case in some european countries. Would that make the GPL non-free or dangerous for us to distribute ? Friendly, Sven Luther
