Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:54:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > 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
>
> But Brian's interest seem to be.
>
> > distribute Free Software between a few people, giving those people all
> > the freedoms expected for Free Software.
>
> And ? What is the problem with that ? You can do it, the only point is that
> you have, upon request to give the upstream author (probably anyone in the
> chain of upstream authors) a copy of it if they request it. This can only be a
> problem with the DFSG 1, if you consider such a thing a fee. But since the
> cost to you is nil, i wonder if we can consider it as a fee, and also i
> consider the fairness involved in refusing to give this to upstream that he
> requests, while you had no problem in taking his work for free.
We're not taking his work for free, because he didn't offer it for free.
That's the problem.
> > 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.
>
> So what, how does that change with the QPL ?
Because someone else can come in and legally demand the changes I've made.
> > That said, I personally think that under almost all circumstances, it is
> > a good idea to provide your changes upstream.
>
> So, ...
Good ideas in the general case are not necessarily good when compelled by
licence terms.
> Anyway, notice that QPL 6 doesn't speak about modification, but work which
> link to a QPLed library. Not exactly the same thing.
Which is even worse, because the QPL is then compelling distribution of
essentially unrelated items. If dynamic linking doesn't produce a
derivative work, the QPL is overstretching it's bounds by quite a bit.
> > >>>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.
>
> Well, sure, but what is your moral ground for refusing the same modifications
> to upstream ?
What's your moral ground for asserting that upstream has a right to my
modifications?
> > >>>>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.
>
> Well, i see disenting voices in that conversation, and the consensus you
> mention seems to be one of assertion, as it is quite lacking in analysis and
> real arguments, don't you think.
Yes, I do see that quite a bit on one side of the discussion.
> > have. Feel free to rebut the arguments of others, but please do not
> > call people ignorant or accuse them of not reading the license.
>
> I have, and you didn't respond to them when i first voiced them, and have to
> this date not yet done so.
>
> > >>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.
>
> Consensus: a general agreement about a matter of opinion.
>
> Mmm.
Mmm indeed. You are aware that "general agreement" != "unanimity"? "In
general" meaning "usually, but not always"?
> > > 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.
>
> "a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the
> initial developer of the Software to distribute your
> modification in future versions of the Software provided such
> versions remain available under these terms in addition to any
> other license(s) of the initial developer."
>
> You don't give a free blank check here, you only give the right for the code
> to be integrated back in the original software, and in the case of dual
> licencing of said software, like in both the ocaml and Qt case, you give the
> right to have the _SAME_ software also relicenced under the other licence,
> thus allowing upstream to not have to handle a split patch. In no way does
Upstream doesn't have to handle a split tree, they just don't integrate
anything they haven't got their permission grant or copyright assignment
for.
For someone who is very quick to accuse others of not reading the rest of
the thread, you're *incredibly* good at forgetting what people have
previously told you.
- Matt
Reply to: