Re: QPL non-DFSG compliance? What future for OCaml in Debian?
Now really CCing debian-legal :/
Friendly,
Sven Luther
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:44:39PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm back from vacation and I've just read the debian-legal archive
> > where there seem to be a concensus about QPL being not DFSG-compliant.
>
> I didn't see any such consensus, and nobody replied to my objections.
>
> > Sven, could you summarize please? What about those emacs files?
> > What about upstream?
>
> There seems to be two critics :
>
> 1) point 6c of the QPL fails the chinese dissident or desert island tests.
>
> Apart from the the dubious justification of those tests (i would much have
> prefered particular DFSG points), i believe that the licence sets implicitly
> the cost of data transfer to the person requiring the sources. This is
> mentioned in the other points where source transfer is mentioned, but not
> here, so there is a grey area. If the 6c were explicitly mentioning this,
> any objection should fall by itself. Maybe the ocaml team may add such a
> clarification ?
>
> 2) the court of venue issue. All lwasuits must be filled at Versailles.
>
> Well, i am no lawyer, but i hardly find this non-free, and the proponent of
> making this non-free are heavily user biased, even if the removal of this
> point would make it impossible for the upstream author to sue licence
> breakers in far away countries, or even just in the US with the joke of a
> legal system they have there. Also, i get the impression that a french court
> may be much less inclined to allow bullshit claims than an US court, so this
> is not really a problem. I have the feeling that any licence which means you
> have to sue in the US would be even less free than that, since it means only
> people with enough money to pay the lawsuit gets to have their licence
> enforced, but this is only my own opinion.
>
> That said, i made those objections, and nobody cared to CC me their reply, if
> they did reply. i am not subscribed to debian-legal, so this makes it
> difficult for me to follow those huge mailing lists, without they taking the
> elemental courtesy of CCing me as i asked.
>
> So, if there is consensus there, i seriously doubt the legitimacy of their
> conclusion, and am wondering about the whole debian-legal process anyway, what
> is their real power, and if they can, in case as these, reach real
> conclusions, and not just achieve the goal fixed by the participants with more
> time to loose.
>
> CCing debian-legal in hope i get a reply this time, and bringing the
> conversation here too. Debian-legal folk, please don't drop the me and/or
> debian-ocaml from this list.
>
> And to whoever who claimed it was not possible to get a list of QPLed packages
> in debian, i invite you to read the grep manpage, and to run it on
> /usr/share/doc/<package>/copyright.
>
> Friendly,
>
> Sven Luther
> >
> > TIA.
> >
> > --
> > Jérôme Marant
> >
> >
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> >
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: