Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 15:23, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> >Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
> >> GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
> >> I gave them (under 3(c)). I am then obliged to pass on my modifications
> >> directly to people who I never provided binaries to. Is distribution
> >> under 3(b) and 3(c) non-free?
> >
> >If those were the only options, it was the loose consensus that that would
> >not be free.
>
> Really? Wow. That's insane.
Whoa! Just exactly how is that insane?
Under 3(b), You promise to be a non-profit global distributor (and
philanthropist archiver!) for a minimum of three years. You may only
use 3(c) for small scale, unmodified distribution, as there is no offer
to pass on for a modified version -- the source code must be for the
version of the binary that you distribute.
Under 3(b), if you ever distribute something, you must hang on to the
source code for it for a minimum of three years. I understand that this
isn't a problem for Debian, seeing as how there's only a stable release
every 3 years anyway, but it sure is a problem for a small-scale
distributor or lone programmer. Under 3(b), you promise to distribute
copies of that source code at the cost of distribution for those three
years -- your cost of securely storing that source code is irrelevant,
and you must eat that cost. Under 3(b), you must undertake to obtain
export licenses, if necessary; just because the person requesting the
code obtained their binary from a third party who has the appropriate
export license doesn't mean that you necessarily do, and there is
nothing in the GPL exempting you from having to obtain it. This may be
a hassle[0]. Under 3(b), your specific life circumstances are
irrelevant; the fact that your life may have turned upside-down in the
past three years (I know mine has!) has no bearing on the fact that you
still have a legally-binding offer out to the entire world, valid for at
least those three years. I'm probably missing a whole bunch of
inconveniences incurred by distributing under 3(b), too.
3(b) is a PITA. 3(c) is only an option for noncommercial distribution,
and even then, only if no changes have been made. I'm sorry, but anyone
who would submit to all the inconvenience of 3(b) just for the privilege
of offering a patch to the community is the one who is insane. Freedom
that only the insane may take advantage of is not freedom, IMO.
3(a) is salvation, because it allows me to give the source at the same
time as the binary and to have no further obligations to anyone -- and
this is precisely where Free Software has thrived; if every programmer
was also required to be a non-profit distributor, I don't think there
would be any code to be having pointless arguments like this about.
[0] Understatement of the minute, at least.
--
Stephen Ryan
Digital Rights Management is bad for all of us:
http://www.bricklin.com/robfuture.htm
Reply to: