Re: Re: Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, luther@debian.org wrote:
> > > Thanks, but in all this thread, i have not seen a single reasonable
> > > suggestion, so i have some doubts about this.
> >
> > Yes, you have: dual-license under the GPL. It's a completely reasonable,
>
> Thanks all the same. It is unreasonable, since it is totally opposite to what
> upstream is trying to achieve.
According to my best interpretation of msgid:[🔎] 20040719163412.GA11755@pegasos,
OCaml upstream wants to either:
1) be able to take other people's modifications proprietary. That's fine
for them, it's just non-free for us.
OR
2) Wants to be able to relicence OCaml to others under a proprietary licence
for a fee, in order to fund further development. That's even finer, and can
be done by either writing it all themselves (and hence having nobody else's
licence to worry about), or getting copyright assignments or
totally-permissive grants from everyone whose contributions they incorporate
into OCaml.
1) is non-free, no matter what licence they use. 2) doesn't require the QPL
(which I feel is non-free for a variety of reasons).
I understand you know upstream and their foibles, and that's great -- it's
what maintainers are for. If they don't want to be involved in yet another
licencing flamewar, I respect them for that. They have their agenda they
want to follow. But Debian has one as well, and when the two conflict,
there will be discussion. You can help upstream by summarising the result
of this discussion for them. From what I can see, one of the major
objections you have is that you don't want to be the bearer of bad news --
that the licence that the OCaml people have carefully chosen is violently
disliked by several people on d-legal. Unfortunately, life is full of bad
news.
> > well not be applicable in this particular case, but it's still a sane and
>
> No, it is not applicable here, i have explained why various times, and it is
> not reasonable for me to suggest this to upstream.
So don't suggest it to them then.
> > reasonable suggestion in most cases, and fits my explanation of "course of
> > action" exactly.
>
> Sure, but totally irrealistic.
In this specific case, and only known because of your knowledge of upstream.
Glenn's arguing that it's a good general course of action, and you're saying
it sucks in this case. You're arguing totally different points --
basically, you're both right.
> discourteous of you, especially after you (plural and impersonal you) all
> dragged me into this mud pit and away from more meaningfull debian work.
We did no dragging. You chose to enter the discussion (with a big, noisy
splash, I might add). If you like, you can place equal blame on upstream --
they chose the licence we're now discussing. <grin>
> > You're treated as if you're deliberately rude and uncooperative, which you
> > certainly are. If you believe you're being treated poorly, then perhaps
> > you should reevaluate the way you're treating us.
>
> Well, sorry, but the way i was dragged into this is a bit rude to me also, and
> furthermore past experience here, and the tratment i subsequently got from
> branden and assufield and a few others on irc make me very very negatively
> disposed on debian-legal.
"You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar". Reacting to arrogance
with more arrogance doesn't help, it just diminishes you in the eyes of
spectators. It's even worse when there's no immediate justification for it.
I don't know (or at least can't recall) your past history with some other
d-legal participants, but your messages in this thread have made you look
like a right prat.
> also sprach Brian M. Carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx>
> [2004.07.09.2322 +0200]:
> > debian-legal has adjudged the QPL non-free, and the maintainer
> > refuses to move this package to non-free;
>
> Which clearly is a misrepresentation, if not an outward lie.
>
> > Neither of these are rude. I'm not going to bother pursuing this any further.
> > Brian has a strong track record of being reasonable, and you have a strong
> > track record of being rude.
>
> Sure, sure, whatever. I expect you to retract the position about Brian on the
> above. And because Brian is one of your crowd, it doesn't make his position
> any truer.
You are aware that Brian !== Brian? Brian Thomas Sniffen, your primary
combatant in this thread, is not Brian M. Carlson, the author of the snippet
you quoted above?
- Matt
Reply to: