On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:42:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:21:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:29:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > > But again, the DFSG makes no provision whatsoever for this kind of things. > > > > So in general, you believe it's ok to inflict all kinds of risks on > > > > users who exercise their rights on software in main, so long as the DFSG > > > > doesn't explicitly prohibit them? > > > No, but these are hypothetical risks which i have some doubts will happen. > > > Like they say here, 0-risk is impossible to obtain, there will always be some > > > risk. Still the DFSG are our guidelines for what we consider free, if lawsutis > > > are part of it, we need to add a new DFSG entry about it, and go through the > > > voting and 3:1 majority requirement and everything. > > > Or clearly add a note to the DFSG that we feel free to add any random > > > additional constraint at our whim. > > > > Forget these inane arguments about what the DFSG does or doesn't > > > > prohibit; why would we WANT to expose our users to licenses like this? > > > Why not ? And do you consider seriously that the risk involved is a real one ? > > > Or just empty speculation ? > > Is the risk of being sued for including small amounts of GPL code in > > your binary-only application a real risk? > > What's the difference between a "real" risk and a "hypothetical" risk, > > until someone actually gets sued? > Well can you propose a real example of what we are considering here ? An > example for which upstream sues an random user over the QPL. Also such a case > were we would honestly stand on the users said, and not say, he violated the > licence, he deserves what he gets. Step 1) SCO buys (or wins in a lawsuit) the copyright to some QPL'ed code we're distributing. (AIUI, even in Europe, copyrights can be bought, sold, or contracted; as distinct from moral rights, which cannot be.) Step 2) SCO uses this additional legal leverage to initiate wrongful lawsuits against people who are distributing the QPLed code. > And then, do you honestly believe such a case would happen, and that it is > common enough for us to worry about it. How many users must be bankrupted by lawsuits before you consider it "common enough" to worry about? > > The bright line that most followers of debian-legal appear to conform to > > is "the licenses say that you can exercise the freedoms listed in the DFSG". > Ok, but the choice of venue issues stops none of those freedoms. > > This is not zero-risk, because nothing in life is zero-risk; the > > copyright holder could be acting in bad faith, or you could be sued by a > > third party for patent infringement, or even for copyright infringement. > > The point is that we don't want our users to be exposed to risks *by the > > license*. > So you are hiding behind hypothetical harrasing upstream authors, over a > clause which may or may not be binding. You are hiding behind your belief in the infinite goodness of the upstream authors. Our goal here is to protect our users, and the way to do that is to assume the *worst* about the people they're exchanging code with, not the best. If I hire someone to provide security for my home, and he surveys it, looks at the open windows, looks at the door with no lock on it, and tells me "Your home is secure, most people in the world are good and won't try to rob you", should I be content with this? > What if i sue debian because the GPL non-warranty close is illegal in my > country ? As it seems to be the case in some european countries. Would that > make the GPL non-free or dangerous for us to distribute ? The GPL warranty disclaimer is *void* in your country. That is not the same thing as it being *illegal* in your country. Please explain the basis of the lawsuit you're bringing against Debian in this hypothetical case. It is most likely a lawsuit that no change to the license could protect us against without becoming non-free, and therefore out of scope for questions of freeness. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature