Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 04:50:26PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> [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?
No sorry, searching for me will cost the same as searching for you.
> >>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.
I told it already earlier. They effectively have a non-free scheme, in which
they distribute ocaml also under another licence to people who join the ocaml
consortium, and thus help financing the ocaml development effort. As thus any
change they integrate into the common code, they also want to be able to offer
under this alternate licencing, thus the choice of the QPL.
Also, they are developer and academics, not lawyer, and the more time they
spend thinking on it, the more it bores them, so especially in this case of
doubtfull argumentation, approaching them is more likely to get a reject out
of non-interest of broaching the legal subject again.
> >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
No.
> 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.)
Well, what about my personal judgement of the folk involved, based on personal
real life meeting them and over 6 years of maintainer-upstream good
relationship ?
> >[...] 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
Well, i have the feeling than many on debian-legal overindulge in sterile
discussion, maybe not out of pleasure, but maybe some morbid fascination. This
is an external view, but still a feeling i get when reading this many hundred
long thread, which does't really broaches, or rarely, the main points.
> 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.
Well, does that mean that i should start lobbying debian-legal on the fear
that i will no more be able to do my packaging work ? This is also the reason
i lost more than two hours reading this often ridicoulous thread. Imagine how
many bugs i could have fixed in the meantime ?
> >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
Suppose someone is using some GPLed code in violation of the GPL, you as
author of it, have to defend yourslef against this violation, and thus free
the modifications made under it. Sure, it is a defensive act, since it is not
you breaking the law, but some other party. And the SCO antecedent in US law
bodes very badly for any such resolved in US law/court/whatever.
> people. They are seeking to prosecute them if that concerns them. I
Well, so what is the point of licences, if you allow people to violate them
and never prosecute. Notice that if said people would not be breaking the
licence in the first place, there should be no reason for prosecutions.
And i doubt the DFSG is here to protect the freedom to not respect the licence
of some software.
> 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.
Well, yes, but in that case, a lone developer without extensive monetary
ressource, has no way to sue a potential violator of the licence, thus making
said licence totally void. You have to strike a balance here, and not see only
the potential licence breaker.
> >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;
Well, ok, but at least they should be allowed a time to voice their opinion,
and in time for it to be considered also. I have some loss of faith in
debian-legal to reach reasonable conclusions though, and as thus i would like
to be informed if there is some likeliness of disaster happening.
> 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
Well, yes, but there is Brian, filling bug reports claiming there is
consensus.
> recently that there is a concise summary of the interesting questions,
> although I think its title overstated things a bit.
Yeah, but as a debian-legal outsider, it is scary even to think of it.
> 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.
Well, first you mussle Brian and don't let him fill upsetting bug reports
while falsifying the state of consensus of debian-legal :). This has not only
brought fear into me, but also into many of the small team of ocaml related
packages, which would also be affected by this decision.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
>
> --
> 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: