Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
[CCd: I remember Sven saying he is not a -legal reader]
On 2004-07-17 02:40:54 +0100 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
libraries which is linked with the code is LGPL, which is QPL
compatible, plus some exception that RMS suggested us. I participated
to
that discussion back then, and see the caml-list mailing list archive
if
you are interested. [...]
You have mentioned this to me before, but I did not find it in the
list archive. Do you have a more specific reference, please?
Why do you think such a suggestion would be ridiculed in this case?
I
Because, in my case at least, the upstream authors chose the QPL after
long discutions, because they are interested in their properties.
It would be interesting to know what properties of the QPL they are
interested in. It may be possible to recommend a sympathetic scheme,
or it may show that they have non-free ambitions. It's still
interesting extra information.
ocaml upstream authors are a research team in the french inria, which
is
a state institute, so the academic world and not some evil corporation
or something.
I believe corporations do not have a monopoly on evil. Merely showing
they are not a corporation does not prove that they are not evil. (I
am not saying that they are, but I find your argument offensive.)
[...] legal issues are more a trouble to
them, as it is too me, than some kind of recreation, as it is for most
of you here.
I suspect you have absolutely no basis for that allegation, so please
refrain from making it. Legal issues are a horror, but one we simply
cannot avoid, even if we want to. Primarily, I'm here for the same
reason that I lobby politicians and work on other not-for-profit
projects: ultimately, if I don't, I will not be able to continue doing
what I enjoy doing.
Also, one of the clauses you have problems with, the "court of venue",
if waived, might limit their possibilities to defend against people
not
respecting the licence [...]
This language is confused. They do not need to defend against such
people. They are seeking to prosecute them if that concerns them. I
hope you agree, the burden should normally fall on the plainter to
prove their allegations and they are compensated for any burden, if
the allegations are proven? Otherwise, you limit the possibilities for
users to defend against people not respecting freedom.
And as said, i am badly disposed to this anyway, since i discovered
this
thread through a third party, and debian-legal didn't even bother to
inform the packagers of QPLed code of this discussion.
You cannot have it both ways! Informing packagers early in the
discussion brings accusations that we are wasting their time;
informing them after the issues have been discussed a bit brings
accusations that we "didn't even bother to inform" them. As I'm sure
you've noticed, there's nothing like consensus on this yet. It's only
recently that there is a concise summary of the interesting questions,
although I think its title overstated things a bit.
If you have a strong opinion on how it *should* be done, then say
that, instead of just destructive criticism that you think it
shouldn't be this way.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL;
Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast
Reply to: