Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>> What if I only wish to distribute binaries? The requirement that I
>> distribute source alongside them is a fee. It's not necessarily one that
>> applies to Debian, but it's one that applies to our users.
>
>No, because you can't distribute binaries or source at all without the license.
>So saying "you can distribute the class of derived works
>binary+source" is fine; saying that you can distribute binaries+source
>and must also send binaries and a license to the initial author is not.
But compare it to the BSD license. I can provide BSD-licensed binaries
without the requirement to provide source. Compared to that, the GPL
imposes a fee upon me.
>> Why? Asserting this doesn't make it true.
>
>Well, for a start because it compels me to keep a copy forever. It
>also compels me to send a potentially huge number of messages. For
>example, it doesn't say I only have to send him one today. Tomorrow,
>he can demand another. Maybe he used up the first. Maybe he lost
>it. Doesn't matter, I have to send another.
You also have the option of making it available to the general public.
>In any case, even *one* distribution to a person I don't want to
>distribute to is non-free.
Why? I don't see any section of the DFSG that obviously leads to this
conclusion.
>> Christ. Yes, it is entirely about a charge because the QPL explicitly
>> talks about charges. In order to claim that you can't distribute under
>> the same terms you need to demonstrate that the requirement to provide a
>> copy of the modifications upstream equates to a charge. I've seen no
>> convincing arguments of the sort.
>
>Oh, I'm sorry -- I thought that was clear from the first part. You
>don't think that an agreement to keep every modification I ever
>distribute to anybody around forever in case the original author wants
>a copy is a charge?
No. It certainly doesn't match the common usage.
>> Why?
>
>Imagine INRIA publishes a public request that anyone who's distributed
>any changes to Ocaml's compiler to anybody send it back to INRIA. Now
>this requirement has transformed into a requirement that you publish
>your code on distribution, *and* it's done so retroactively, because
>this license-bomb was allowed in.
No, you're obliged to send it back to the copyright holder. Compare this
to a requirement to publically provide source on distribution - one
involves all copyright holders of the subversive code to attach their
names to something that is put where their government can get it, and
one involves the same code being sent to the copyright holder. If the
copyright holder is either the government or a company that's
excessively friendly with them then you probably lose, but in the
presence of a hostile government you've already lost.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: