Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:55:37AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>
>> Or he can publish a request that anyone with changes send them to
>> him. It doesn't say the request has to be personal or private.
>
> And how exactly will he prove such a request reached you ? I doubt a general
> request is legaly binding, so this can safely be ignored, can it not ?
Why do you doubt this? Either you fulfill the request, or you're
violating the license.
>> > Also, on a moral ground, how would you justify taking free source code, making
>> > your own modifications, and refusing those modifications to upstream, even
>> > though he could integrate it in the original source, and make it available to
>> > the rest of the world ? That sounds like bastardly egoist on your part. (err,
>> > your not meant personally here, just to be clear).
>>
>> Because he doesn't just want to distribute them to the rest of the
>> world. He also wants to turn them into a proprietary product and sell
>> them! The BSD license is "fair" (a term invented for use here): it
>
> Well, sure, whatever, but not all licence allow that, look for the GPL for
> example. It is only fair for upstream to be permitted to forbid such practice,
> and nothing is forcing you to choose to modify the code base in question,
> instead of writing your own code.
Indeed, that's why I provided the GPL and BSD licenses as examples of
this fairness property.
> 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?
>> offers lots of permission, and asks nothing. It's more generous than
>> "fair". The GPL is "fair": it offers many permissions, but some of
>> them can only be exercised if you pass the same permissions on to
>> others. That is, it's a copyleft. But it's probably the most
>> restrictive you can be and still be "fair".
>
> Whatever. you want to modify ocaml, and not give back your changes to the
> community. You have no sympathy from me, neither probably from a waste
> majority of the debian project.
>
> Also you lying, claiming consensus, while there is no such thing, doesn't
> endear you to me.
I don't think personal insults really help anything. What I see is a
bunch of generic agreement that there's a problem with the QPL -- that
it's non-free, and that it's probably DFSG-nonfree , but that either way
what it requires isn't something which Debian should be shipping to
users and saying, "it's OK to modify this, you have all these freedoms
listed in the DFSG".
On the other side of that issue, I see you and a couple others calling
the people here lazy, deceitful, and lying. You suggest that users
should violate licenses because they won't get caught.
The question of whether the QPL is free appears to have firm consensus
from everyone involved in the debate, instead of standing on the
sidelines and screaming.
The question of what to *do* about that -- ask upstream authors to
change their licenses, or modify the DFSG to make this issue explicit.
>> The QPL isn't even close to that line of "fair"ness: It is a copyleft
>> which requires that even more permissions be granted to the initial
>> author. I get some rights to the initial author's code, but he
>> insists that I give him not only the same rights to my code (which
>> would be a "fair" copyleft), but much more.
>
> Well, you get to use the authors code, but he is not allowed to get your
> modifications back ? Well, we should not use the same definition for fair
> then.
Read the last three words of what I wrote again. "But much more."
>> I don't think this idea of "fair"ness is explicit in the DFSG right
>> now, but it's an important component of Freedom. It's also a superset
>
> Sure, but are you sure the debian project agrees with you on this ? And are
> you a debian developer to start with ? If yes, you could submit a GR for this,
> and try to obtain the 5 seconds you would need for it to pass.
I'm in the NM process right now. Even if I were a DD, submitting a GR
for this seems unproductive right now. That's not the way to change
opinions, that's the way to acknowledge that opinions have changed.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: