Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> 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.
I don't see why you call that a fee -- but I do see a deeper problem
with your argument: The "distribute my code and I'll pay you a
dollar" license gives me a dollar if I distribute binaries. Compared
to that, the BSD-licensed binaries don't give me a dollar. Is that
dollar I'm not getting a fee?
Of course it isn't. The author isn't giving me money, but that
doesn't mean he's demanding money from me. Similarly, an author who
licenses his work under the GPL isn't giving me permissions he would
if he licensed his work under the BSD license, but he isn't demanding
a fee from me. The QPL does demand that I do certain things for the
author when I distribute.
>>> 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.
That doesn't satisfy my obligation. I must either keep a copy
forever, or ensure that it remains available to the general public.
My programs are nothing, total tripe. The public has no interest in
maintaining copies of them. So though I have published them on my web
site, in fifty years they will not be available to the general
public. But I will still be required to send copies to initial authors
of QPL'd works!
Even were that not the case, and simple publication relieved me of my
obligation to keep a copy around, that would itself be non-free.
>>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.
My works have value -- tripe though they be. To compel me to transmit
items of value to another is a fee.
>>> 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.
I think it does -- some people pay money for me to write code for
them. They think they're getting a good deal. The QPL authors wish
me to send that code to them. In many cases, I don't object to doing
so -- but I don't think it's a Free license that compels me to do so.
>>> 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.
I don't think your last sentence is connected to the rest of the
argument, and couldn't make sense of the bit after the dash, so I'll
look just at this:
> Compare this to a requirement to publically provide source on
> distribution
Do you think that's free? I don't consider such a license free.
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: