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.
How is that relevant as a response to my mail? I don't care if the software bans distributing proprietary software based on the Free Software; I care if it bans distributing software privately, amonst a few people, who all have Freedom. >>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. > > >>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 ? You claimed that taking Free Software and not distributing your modifications to the original author (even though you distribute them to everyone you give a binary to) would be "taking the software proprietary". I am saying that such software would _not_ be proprietary, since everyone who has a copy has all the freedoms of Free Software over their copy. >>Giving someone a binary without the source prevents them from exercising >>their rights over that software. Giving someone no program at all does >>not restrict their rights, any more than giving someone no money: I am >>not obligated to distribute to them. > > So, how is this relevant to the problem at hand ? Just making the point that one would not be restricting the rights of others by not distributing the software to those others at all (or in particular by not distributing to the original author). > Anyway, notice that QPL 6 doesn't speak about modification, but work which > link to a QPLed library. Not exactly the same thing. > >>>>>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 ? I would tend to say the burden of proof lies with the person arguing that a given restriction should be acceptable. Why should I _not_ have that right? What if I have modifications including sensitive information specific to my organization, for example? Otherwise, we would allow any arbitrary restriction that we have not explicitly banned. The set of possible non-free restrictions is infinite. If our position on uncategorized restrictions is to allow them, then we allow an infinite number of non-free licenses. >>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. If you are referring to your new thread, "Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.", I am just now reaching that in the huge number of mails to debian-legal. :) >>>>The question of what to *do* about that -- ask upstream authors to >>>>change their licenses, or modify the DFSG to make this issue explicit. >>> >>>Bah, sure, i would do that immediately, if i would be given valable >>>arguments. >>>Like that i would not only be ashamed to inform my upstream about this issue, >>>and thus show that debian follows a bunch of uninformed people in their >>>conclusions, i would be lying to them about this consensus issue, and also >>>lowering my future relationship with them over real issues. >> >>It is difficult to consider the possible avenues by which a licensor may >>abuse a license, when you have a particular licensor in mind who you do >>not believe would do that. I understand that you don't think your >>upstream would sue people repeatedly and force them to come to a given >>jurisdiction, or request source repeatedly and without compensation, or >>attempt to take proprietary the modifications made by others. However, >>lack of expected enforcement by one licensor does not make a license >>Free, or make those restrictions less important. > > Sure, but if you follow this route, no software would be free, there has to be > a balance somewhere, and common sense should apply also. No, if you follow the route you suggested, then all software would be free, if we can assume that the licensor will not actually use their rights under their licenses. >>The "Tentacles of Evil" test is helpful to consider here. Consider the > > The various tests are only usefull to muddle the water, forgetting the actual > DFSG, to argue about hypothetical issues of questionable relevance. Fine; pertend I didn't mention the name of a test. Consider the case anyway, that upstream was suddenly hostile to Free Software. If they can somehow effectively terminate the license, then the software is non-free. Would you disagree with that, and say that a license which can be effectively terminated is still Free? - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
