Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: QPL 6c argumentation.
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:20:00PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>:
>
> > > dealing with requests later. From the company's point of view the
> > > situation is then very similar to the situation of being compelled to
> > > make the software available to the general public.
> >
> > Why ? You could ask upstream not to release it.
>
> According to 6b you have to give them permission to release it.
Sure, so have you done to your partners, and they have not released them,
probably because there are under NDA or something such.
> > And again, if you don't make
> > public announcement, upstream has no way to know about said software, and if
> > he does, you have a leak somewhere.
>
> Perhaps in some cases you could keep the matter secret, but it's an
> additional inconvenience, to put it mildly.
And, nobody promised live would be easy.
> > Again, do we really want to care about such far fetched cases ?
>
> I don't think the case I invented is particularly far-fetched,
> certainly not by debian-legal standards.
Yeah, that is exactly the problem of debian-legal. Far fetched hypothetical
cases over a pragmatic approach.
> > So, if you distribute it to partners, based on the work done by the upstream
> > author, you can as well distribute it to the upstream authors. And if you
> > don't like it, don't modify its software. Nowhere in the DFSG does it say that
> > you have a right to make modifications not widely available. There is enough
> > licences out there which allow this kind of thing. And in the ocaml case, if
> > you really like to do this, you become an Ocaml consortium member, and get the
> > ocaml compiler suite under another licence which is less restrictive.
>
> Yes, you always have the right not to use the software. That hardly
> makes it free. Are there other licences in Debian main that have this
> "privacy problem" (this privacy issue that you consider not to be a
> problem)?
But did we promise that in the DFSG ? I see no such thing. It would be nice to
have, but if you don't have it, too bad.
> > > Anyway, there's a third chance of getting 6c past debian-legal, which
> > > someone brought up in a different thread and which might be the
> > > strongest yet:
> > >
> > > (3) Claim that the rights granted in section 3 of the QPL are
> > > sufficient to make the software free so there is no need to even look
> > > at section 6.
> >
> > No, since they apply to two different things. QPL 3 and 4 is for modifications
> > of the original software, while QPL 6 is for applications linking with the
> > software.
>
> I'm surprised to see you dismiss so readily what is potentially your
> strongest argument, but perhaps it's a trick to make me argue your
No, because i honestly believe that the QPL makes this modified work/linked
work distinction, so you can't use this case. I don't adapt my interpretations
to my own convenience, but to what i believe is written in the actual licence.
> case for you: Where in the DFSG does it say that a licence must give
> special additional permission for applications linking with the
Well, these are not additional permissions but restrictions. But then the GPL
also does the same, it says that linked works are covered by the GPL, while
the LGPL allows dynamically linked works untouched by it, or statically linked
code with some additional constraint.
> software? Isn't the right to distribute modified versions as source
> and binary enough, and doesn't QPL 3 and 4 grant those rights?
Again, i believe that the QPL makes a distinction between modified version of
the software, and apps linked with it. Go reread the whole QPL with this
distinction in mind, and then tell me it is not obvious that that is what is
meant. There is at least three references of this distinctions, if i remember
well.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: