Re: Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
>
> #index top up prev next
> _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
>
> Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
> _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> * To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
> * Subject: Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
> * From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
> * Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:15:29 -0400
> * In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20040717014054.GB13320@pegasos>
> * Mail-copies-to: nobody
> * Mail-followup-to: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
> * Message-id: <[🔎] 20040717021529.GF18115@zewt.org>
> * Old-return-path: <glenn@zewt.org>
> * References: <20040712210441.GB31193@pegasos> <87y8lorbgy.fsf@aule.evenmere.org> <[🔎] 20040713080108.GB373@pegasos>
> <[🔎] 20040714.212707.71085380.wlandry@ucsd.edu> <[🔎] 20040715054419.GA11651@pegasos> <[🔎] 20040716234008.GE18115@zewt.org> <[🔎] 20040717014054.GB13320@pegasos>
> * User-agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
> _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 03:40:54AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>> > reasonable. We've asked many software authors to do similar things in the
>> > past, with very frequent success, and less laughter and anger than you
>> > seem to think.
>>
>> Yes, but it is by no means reason enough to declare the QPL non-free.
>
>I didn't claim that it was, so this statement isn't relevant.
Ok, so everything is fine, and there is no reason to change the licence, nor
to remove ocaml from the sarge release at the last minute.
>> > Why do you think such a suggestion would be ridiculed in this case? I
>>
>> Because, in my case at least, the upstream authors chose the QPL after
>> long discutions, because they are interested in their properties. The
>> ocaml upstream authors are a research team in the french inria, which is
>> a state institute, so the academic world and not some evil corporation
>> or something. They want to be able to provide ocaml under other licence
>> to users who request it in order to get more founding to be able to hire
>> more developers, since after all they are but a bunch of people, and can
>> not do everything. Also they are mostly interested in a licence which
>> doesn't cause them problems, and legal issues are more a trouble to
>> them, as it is too me, than some kind of recreation, as it is for most
>> of you here. In this light and knowing the history of the licence
>> change of ocaml, from the original non-free licence (source only patch
>> only distribution of modifications possible), i can assure you that they
>> will find it ridicoulous at best, and be irritated or angry at worst to
>> a "Use the GPL" kind of solution.
>
>I'm sorry you assume that everyone's immediate response to these issues
>will be ridicule and anger. It simply hasn't been my experience. (However,
>my experience with you is that your immediate response to these issues is
>ridicule and anger, which gives me some understanding of why you would
>assume others will behave similarly.)
Hey, did you read what i said ? I have been in the discussion with upstream
about this issue since 6 years now, and even RMS contributed to that
discussion, and claimed the current licence was ok (Well, he suggested the
LGPL + exception for the runtime libraries, in a way that mirrors how the gcc
package does it). As thus, if i go with ridicoulous arguments to upstream,
then i will be either laughed at, or no longer considered as a valid
discussion partner on this issue, in both case i loose whatever influence i
have with upstream about this issue, which i don't want to. And not only have
i not read valid argumentation, my counter-arguments where ignored, as was my
asking for people in this discussion to CC me as i have some trouble following
debian-legal, not being subscribed to it.
If upstream chose this licence it was after years of discussion and thinking,
not a spur of the moment/follow trolltech's lead kind of decision like you are
implying. And by taking that kind of implications you somehow belittle the
capacity of understanding licences from upstream, and dismiss all the
discussion that lead to the current state of things. And i can assure you that
the current situation is much nicer than the patch only, no modified binary
distribution that we used to have before.
>"Use the GPL" is a reasonable suggestion to most users of the QPL, since
>many people who use the QPL were following TrollTech's lead, and most of
>those people have since followed it further and dual-licensed under the
>GPL. You're saying that this is an exception to that: people who are
>using the QPL on its own merits, and not simply because TrollTech did
Yep, and i believe that the Apple licence, the NPL and many other such ones
have similar properties. Why are we not picking on them ?
>so. That's perfectly fine, and means that they should be approached
>differently. It doesn't make the GPL suggestion any less valid in the
>general case, however.
Well, it may be valid, but you should at least consider the history of the
case before making quick judgement, especially if you claim to know more than
the maintainer of the package about it.
>> Also, one of the clauses you have problems with, the "court of venue",
>> if waived, might limit their possibilities to defend against people not
>> respecting the licence, and since one of their problematic is for big
>> corporation including their changes in java or other such bytecode
>> running languages (think C# and a corporation known for stealing code),
>> this may be quite reasonable.
>
>Then please calm down, stop expressing your fear of ridicule, and argue
>this position.
I did, nobody even bothered to respond.
And if i feel a bit excited about this, is because the only reason i know
about this discussion is the sudden bug report from Brian which was less than
tactfull. I wonder if he had not filled it, i would have been expected to
remove the package (and all its dependencies) from debian/main a few days
before the sarge release.
And you all speak as there is consensus, but i only see a few people claiming
they think this or that is non-free. Actually, the court of venue was maybe
mentioned by 2-3 people, and never seriously argumented. The mail where i
counter-argued it has also been totally ignored, so ...
>> You have to be more serious before you declare a licence non-free on
>> wishfull thinking like you are doing.
>
>I don't see "wishful thinking" (nor do I know how "wishful thinking" can
>possibly apply to freedom of licenses); I see strong arguments that this
>license is not free. If you disagree with those arguments, please don't
>simply assert your disagreement; explain it.
Well, i have done so, but nobody seem to have read that email, so what do you
expect of me ?
>> And as said, i am badly disposed to this anyway, since i discovered this
>> thread through a third party, and debian-legal didn't even bother to
>> inform the packagers of QPLed code of this discussion.
>
>I think many here generally prefer not to bother maintainers with these
>issues while a summary is still incomplete, as the QPL summary currently is.
Well, but presenting them with a fait-accompli days before the sarge release
is ok ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: