Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:27:07PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > Hello debian-legal.
> >
> > I don't know why, but Brian has been bothering me about claiming the QPL
> > is non-free. I agree with the emacs thing, and am working on a solution
> > to it when time permits, and upstream has also agreed to it in
> > principle, so this should be solved before the now imminent (whatever
> > this means for debian release cycle :) sarge release.
>
> Great
Another question about this, if i am to remove these emacs files, is it
ok to remove them only from the binary package, or do they need to be
kicked out of the source tarball also. I believe that removing the
offending code from the source code is not a problem, since these files
are clearly distributable, even in debian, what is of doubious legal
status is loading them in emacs. I am preparing the 3.08 release of
ocaml, and i was to late in sending out the request for clarification,
so the change is not in. In fact my mail crossed the 3.08 announcement.
And i don't really want to do multiple source tarball uploads, which is
rather messy.
> > Anyway, it would rightly surprise me if the QPL would be reveled
> > non-free after all this years of use and the KDE controversy it was
> > linked to, and i believe that we have more than just ocaml as QPLed
> > programs in debian.
>
> It sometimes happens that the first vetting of a license doesn't catch
> all of the problems. For example, there were problems in the GNU FDL
> that were not caught until much later. The IBM CPL also has some
> minor problems that came up later. License analysis is a slow,
> ongoing affair.
>
> > So i request the help of debian-legal to help me clarify this thing,
> > and either make an official statement that the QPL is non-free, or
> > shut Brian up, and let me back to work on my packages.
>
> There is no official mouthpiece of debian-legal. However, I would say
> that the consensus on debian-legal is that the QPL is not DFSG-free.
> The "choice of venue" and the "send changes back" clauses are both
> problematic.
Well, what i want to know is if this is really the official consensus,
or just wishfull thinking of a few vocal debian-legal participant. Also,
if the QPL was to be declared non-free, i would act on it when seeing it
publicly announced on debian-announce, and i believe i am not the only
maintainer doing this. After all, if you take such decisions, then you
should stand public scrutiny on them.
In any way, i will by no way act on them until i receive satisfied
responses to the doubts i have over the reasoning behind the above two
problems you mention. And also a proposal on how to make the licence
non-free, instead of the "please switch to the GPL" which is sure to be
received with laugthers or even some anger when i go upstream with it.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: