Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
[Sven wants cc]
On 2004-07-19 17:34:12 +0100 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 04:50:26PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
You have mentioned this to me before, but I did not find it in the
list
archive. Do you have a more specific reference, please?
No sorry, searching for me will cost the same as searching for you.
You remember the conversation, which I do not. It should be easier for
you to locate it, if it is there. I don't think it's in the list that
you think it is, but I don't know where it is.
they are not a corporation does not prove that they are not evil. (I
am not
saying that they are, but I find your argument offensive.)
Well, what about [...]
Fine to me, but that wasn't what you wrote.
Well, i have the feeling than many on debian-legal overindulge in
sterile
discussion, maybe not out of pleasure, but maybe some morbid
fascination. This
is an external view, but still a feeling i get when reading this many
hundred
long thread, which does't really broaches, or rarely, the main points.
I think the extreme length of this thread is partly due to an Offended
Maintainer sending messages three at a time restating the same point
over and oevr that people haven't had time to answer yet.
reason that I lobby politicians and work on other not-for-profit
projects:
ultimately, if I don't, I will not be able to continue doing what I
enjoy
doing.
Well, does that mean that i should start lobbying debian-legal on the
fear
that i will no more be able to do my packaging work ?
No.
This is also the reason
i lost more than two hours reading this often ridicoulous thread.
Imagine how
many bugs i could have fixed in the meantime ?
I don't know. I could have done lots more directly useful stuff too,
but this has a role too.
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 [...]
This language is confused. They do not need to defend against such
Suppose someone is using some GPLed code in violation of the GPL, you
as
author of it, have to defend yourslef against this violation [...]
Surely that is a prosecution, not a defence?
Well, yes, but in that case, a lone developer without extensive
monetary
ressource, has no way to sue a potential violator of the licence,
thus making
said licence totally void. You have to strike a balance here, and not
see only
the potential licence breaker.
"Potential licence breaker"? You mean the licensee? That's not a good
attitude towards users, "let's assume they're all potential
lawbreakers".
It is entirely proper that we worry about the licensee, because they
expect us to. We are worried about the licensor using choice of venue
as a termination clause, by starting an unprovable complaint that is
decided against a poor licensee, simply because they cannot appear in
the stated court. Now, if you are sure that France does not allow the
plaintiff's venue to hear this case, then this wouldn't cause ocaml to
be non-free, but then why cause confusion by having this clause there?
It means changes in French law could make ocaml non-free, which sucks.
I am aware that the questions of termination clauses are being
discussed in another debian-legal thread.
You cannot have it both ways! Informing packagers early in the
discussion
brings accusations that we are wasting their time;
Well, ok, but at least they should be allowed a time to voice their
opinion,
and in time for it to be considered also.
I think that is a good idea. Would a d-d-a post when a summary reaches
consensus on the -legal list help?
I have some loss of faith in
debian-legal to reach reasonable conclusions though, and as thus i
would like
to be informed if there is some likeliness of disaster happening.
Subscribe.
informing them after the issues have been discussed a bit brings
accusations that we "didn't even bother to inform" them. As I'm sure
you've
noticed, there's nothing like consensus on this yet. It's only
Well, yes, but there is Brian, filling bug reports claiming there is
consensus.
Brian has apologised to my satisfaction, and I have apologised to him
for my erroneous allegation. I am sorry you seem to have have rejected
his apology and are still basing your view on my mistaken comment.
recently that there is a concise summary of the interesting
questions,
although I think its title overstated things a bit.
Yeah, but as a debian-legal outsider, it is scary even to think of it.
Don't fear the wardrobe monsters.
If you have a strong opinion on how it *should* be done, then say
that,
instead of just destructive criticism that you think it shouldn't be
this
way.
Well, first you mussle Brian and don't let him fill upsetting bug
reports
while falsifying the state of consensus of debian-legal :).
Do you know constructive criticism? Hello? Anyone in?
This has not only
brought fear into me, but also into many of the small team of ocaml
related
packages, which would also be affected by this decision.
Again, NOT HELPFUL.
Despairing,
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL;
Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast
Reply to: