Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:08:14PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> 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.
And ? What royalty or fee did you pay him ?
> > > 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.
Bullshit. but please look at the newly started thread and alaysis.
> > > 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.
So ...
> > 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.
And you ignored me arguing repeteadly that a derived work and a modified work
are not the same thing, right ? Again this speaks highly of your capacity to
follow up here and make informed arguments.
> > > >>>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?
What is your moral ground that he has not ? Elemental courtesy and decency
sure would fall into play here.
> > > >>>>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.
Thanks, again you can only reject those accusation by counter attacking.
Please prove me wrong and make a valuable argumentation in the new thread i
have started.
> > > 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"?
And at what point do you put general agreement ? I have seen two persons
disagreing, me and matt garrett, and a few which disagreed but were afraid to
participate here, and i well understand them (i even got one "you shouldn
't have listened to the debian-legal morons" kind of comment from another DD,
and it is publicly available this time). But how much agreed to it, are you
sure that there more than a handfull, and at what percentage would be the
disagreeing then ? around 20 % or so ? Would this mean general aggreement ?
And what about all those who don't have time to loose stupidly here ?
> > > > 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.
Ok. But they can't reuse the modification then, and all the free software
community looses then.
> 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.
Given the amount of bullshit i have been told, well, one little minor lapse
can be acceptable, and at least i accept my error, while others just don't.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: