Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 14:31, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>
> > 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.
DFSG #1 states "The license of a Debian component may not restrict any
party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an
aggregate software distribution containing programs from several
different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee
for such sale". There is no mention of who the fee must be payable to.
This means that a hypothetical license of "You must give a dollar to
anyone who you provide binaries to" would be non-free - a fee must be
paid to the recipient of the software. If I write software based on
somebody else's GPLed code, I am compelled to provide my source code to
the recipient. Compared to the BSD license, I am obliged to give them
something of value. By your argument, I am forced to pay a fee.
> 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!
Really? The license appears to require that they be available to the
general public at the time of distribution. It's certainly not clear
that it requires that they be available to the general public forever,
or that the copyright holder can request the modifications from you if
they were available to the general public at the time of distribution.
> 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.
Why?
> >>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.
The GPL requires just that.
> > 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.
If your argument is correct, then the QPL is internally inconsistent.
This isn't the parsimonious conclusion.
> > 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:
I'm sorry, "involves" should have been "requires".
> > 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.
I'm unsure at the moment. I don't believe that a requirement to provide
distributed code on request is non-free.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: