Sven Luther wrote: > Well, so what. This only proves that there are licences which allow > proprietary product, and i would never voluntary release code under such a > licence, and they are other who don't. Neither would I. However, my issue with the QPL is not that I would want to take the software proprietary, but that I might want to distribute Free Software between a few people, giving those people all the freedoms expected for Free Software. If I take a GPLed program, modify it, and distribute the modified version among a few people, then as long as those people also have the source (or an offer for the source), then no one is being deprived of Freedom, and the software is not proprietary. Giving someone a binary without the source prevents them from exercising their rights over that software. Giving someone no program at all does not restrict their rights, any more than giving someone no money: I am not obligated to distribute to them. That said, I personally think that under almost all circumstances, it is a good idea to provide your changes upstream. >>>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? > > To make allowance to proprietary modification hoarder, like you seem to be. Again, modifications shared amonst a group, with everyone in that group having Freedom, are not proprietary. >>>>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 > > Well, you claimed there was a consensus, while there is clearly no such thing. > Thus it is a lie intended to get the maintainer to take the course of action > you want through FUD, or at best a misinformed claim you should apologize for. The consensus on debian-legal seems to be strongly against the QPL. >>bunch of generic agreement that there's a problem with the QPL -- that > > A bunch of posts from yourself and a few select others make a consensus, and > there has been no disagrement. Out of hand i remember at least two people who > strongly disagreed. > > >>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". > > Well, again, if it came to a GR i doubt debian would actively support code > hoarders. There are many freedoms that Debian requires which it would never excercise itself, or at least would never do so lightly. For example, the freedom to fork, or the freedom to distribute software that does not conform to some standard, or the freedom to distribute software privately. >>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. > > I didn't do that, but you obviously neither read nor understood what i said > nor the QPL itself, so ... To the best of my knowledge, everyone participating in this discussion has read the QPL. I most certainly have, and I know several others have. Feel free to rebut the arguments of others, but please do not call people ignorant or accuse them of not reading the license. >>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. > > A, a consensus is one where there is no discordant voice, right ? Consensus is stronger than a simple majority, but it does not necessarily unanimous consensus. >>The question of what to *do* about that -- ask upstream authors to >>change their licenses, or modify the DFSG to make this issue explicit. > > Bah, sure, i would do that immediately, if i would be given valable arguments. > Like that i would not only be ashamed to inform my upstream about this issue, > and thus show that debian follows a bunch of uninformed people in their > conclusions, i would be lying to them about this consensus issue, and also > lowering my future relationship with them over real issues. It is difficult to consider the possible avenues by which a licensor may abuse a license, when you have a particular licensor in mind who you do not believe would do that. I understand that you don't think your upstream would sue people repeatedly and force them to come to a given jurisdiction, or request source repeatedly and without compensation, or attempt to take proprietary the modifications made by others. However, lack of expected enforcement by one licensor does not make a license Free, or make those restrictions less important. The "Tentacles of Evil" test is helpful to consider here. Consider the case of an upstream who wishes they had never released their code, or who was paid heavily to try to make it go away. If they released the code under the GPL, then all they can do is stop distributing or supporting the software; anyone with a copy retains all of their freedoms, and can continue to use, copy, modify, and distribute the software. With the QPL, there are several ways that upstream could effectively revoke the license. >>>>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." > > What much more ? And what do you loose if upstream is allowed to use your code > in the main product, and thus everyone profits ? Again, only a code hoarder > would reject this kind of clause, and as thus get no sympathy from me. The QPL allows the original developer an all-permissive license, allowing them to put your code in their proprietary product. Between that, and the patch clause designed to prevent forking, it seems to me like the real code hoarders are those releasing code under the QPL. >>>>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. > > Well, giving bullshit arguments is sure as hell no way to change opinion also, > well, maybe change their opinion of you, yes, but nothing more. > > And i hope you don't tell your AM that you are code hoarding, i doubt he will > appreciate. As I said above, Debian requires some freedoms that they would nevertheless be very hesitant to actually use in practice. Debian has an obligation to ensure that there is some basic set of freedoms available for every single package in Debian. I would be as suprised and annoyed if distributing or modifying a package in Debian main produced some obligation from me to the copyright holder, as I would be if I discovered that exercising my freedoms required me to send the original developer money. This is not to say that I would not endeavor to send changes upstream, only that doing so should not be mandatory. Or do you think that "send me a postcard on request" or "send me a description of what you are doing with the software on request" or "send me a notice on request" would be acceptable? - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature