Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Glenn Maynard wrote:
>This argument could be used for a huge number of licenses that go through
>this list, claiming that every decision more "fuzzy" than "this program
>may not be used commercially" should be discussed on debian-devel or
>some other inappropriate mailing list (or, even more unreasonably, put
>to a vote to adjust the project's founding documents) before being valid.
I'm not claiming that.
>I just don't find "silent majority" arguments interesting. This isn't a
>private mailing list; if you disagree, argue your position, instead of
>arguing that the conclusions of the list are meaningless.
I have a certain amount of frustration at the fact that people
continually assert that the freedom of someone on a desert island to be
able to distribute the software is a fundamental one that must be
protected. In the past, we have compromised in order to be able to
distribute software that we thought was "free enough" - DFSG 4 is a good
example of this. Those active on debian-legal appear less willing to
make those compromises. Failure to acknowledge that the opinions of
debian-legal may diverge from that of other developers is likely to
result in debian-legal becoming increasingly marginalised. Which would
be unfortunate.
>> With the possible exception of the dissident test, I don't think any of
>> these are obviously freedom issues. I'm also not sure I buy the
>> dissident test - the GPL allows for a hostile government to declare that
>> it holds a patent on some section of the subversive code and prevent it
>> from being distributed any further. This is potentially worse for the
>> dissident movement as a whole, even if it's better for the individual
>> dissident who wrote the code. They can't comply with the GPL unless they
>> fight the lawsuit, and, uh, well. Oops.
>
>A hostile government can also declare that the subversive code can not
>be distributed because it says so; that's not the point of that test.
>Please see http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html, 9 A(a).
Did you mean 9A(b)? "Any requirement for sending source modifications to
anyone other than the recipient of the modified binary---in fact any
forced distribution at all, beyond giving source to those who receive a
copy of the binary---would put the dissident in danger." The very fact
that he's a dissident puts him in danger, and the hostile government can
declare that the source must be provided regardless of what the license
says. I still can't imagine a practical situation where this would be an
issue. If the dissident is likely to be put in danger then he is already
doing something worse than breaching copyright law.
And, frankly, the GPL increases the amount of danger the dissident faces
anyway. Only providing binaries would be much safer than providing
source, but the GPL requires that he either pass on the source or pass
on a written offer. What if he gives it to someone who then passes it on
to an informer? He'd have more plausible deniability if it had been
under a BSD license. The GPL restricts the fight against
(communism/capitalism/globalisation)*!
*delete as applicable based on personal prejudice
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: