Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
>>That is, I owe two fees to the initial developer of the software.
>>First, I give him a license to distribute my modifications in future
>>versions of the software, and to use that code in non-free derivatives
>>of the software. Second, if he asks for it I also supply a copy even
>>if I have not distributed them to anyone. This is a fee as described
>>by DFSG #1.
>
> I think you would find it hard to gain consensus that "fee" should be
> interpreted in this manner. The GPL requires that I provide either all
> the source code, a written offer or alternatively information regarding
> the written offer I obtained. A reading of "fee" that broad would cause
> the GPL to fail on the same grounds.
Not at all. The GPL lets me put together (binary+source) bundles and
distribute those -- this is a Free license. The other paths,
involving written offers, don't have to get involved. QPL says that
if I distribute (modified binary+source) to you, then the initial
author can come along *any time he likes* and demand a copy from me,
together with a license to modify and distribute it.
The demand that I hold a copy of every modification I've ever
distributed forever is ridiculous -- I don't know whether it's free or
not, but it's certainly not practical.
The requirement that I give a copy to the initial author, just because
I'm sharing it with a friend, is non-free.
>>Additionally, 6b requires that I license my modifications to others
>>under a *more* permissive license than the QPL. Those to whom I give
>>my items (presumably meaning my modifications) must be licensed to
>>distribute modified copies without charge, and the QPL imposes a
>>charge. Since I can't distribute my modifications under the same terms
>>as the license of the original software, this also fails DFSG #3.
>
> I think that it would be even harder to claim that "charge" covers this.
But this isn't about a charge -- this is about whether I can
distribute my changes under the same license, the QPL.
>>On the other hand, perhaps my understanding of the DFSG is flawed.
>>I've CC'd this to debian-legal, in the hopes that they can clarify.
>
> The main discussed issues with the QPL are:
>
> 1) It requires that distributed modifications be made available to
> upstream if they request. This causes problems for people on desert
> islands who want to distribute software and can't send changes upstream
> - it also causes problems for political dissidents whose lives may be
> made miserable if it's discovered that they're involved in the changes.
>
> I think the first of these would be unlikely to result in successful
> lawsuits, and the second of these seems unrealistic - an environment
> where this is likely to happen is also likely to allow the authorities
> to sieze the information by other means.
This isn't about the success of lawsuits; it's about complying with
the license as written.
As to the dissident example, China and the US are working together on
copyright issues while opposing each other on political issues. If
China, say, buys a QPL author and arranges for him to publish a
demand, they can then enlist the US' help... of course this scenario
is convoluted.
The real reason for the dissident example is this: any requirement for
forced distribution, for action where there would otherwise be total
inaction, is non-free.
> My personal feeling is that no
> actual harm is likely to be generated by this clause. A requirement to
> publish your code on distribution would be more onerous and arguably
> more dangerous, but that's not what we have here.
This is waiting to explode into that if Trolltech, INRIA, or other
QPL-users publish demands for code.
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: