[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:55:37AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> luther@debian.org writes:
> >>>  > So if the developer is just doing it for himself, then the clause
> >>>  > doesn't apply.
> >>>
> >>> Let's go through this again:-
> >>>
> >>>        `These  items, when  distributed, are  subject ..'
> >>>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >>So if I give a copy to my wife for review, that triggers this.
> >
> > If the upstream author asks you about it. For that to happen, first your wife
> > needs to inform him about the change, so he gains knowledge of it. 
> Or he can publish a request that anyone with changes send them to
> him.  It doesn't say the request has to be personal or private.

And how exactly will he prove such a request reached you ? I doubt a general
request is legaly binding, so this can safely be ignored, can it not ?

> > Also, on a moral ground, how would you justify taking free source code, making
> > your own modifications, and refusing those modifications to upstream, even
> > though he could integrate it in the original source, and make it available to
> > the rest of the world ? That sounds like bastardly egoist on your part. (err,
> > your not meant personally here, just to be clear).
> Because he doesn't just want to distribute them to the rest of the
> world.  He also wants to turn them into a proprietary product and sell
> them!  The BSD license is "fair" (a term invented for use here): it

Well, sure, whatever, but not all licence allow that, look for the GPL for
example. It is only fair for upstream to be permitted to forbid such practice,
and nothing is forcing you to choose to modify the code base in question,
instead of writing your own code.

Also, i also doubt that this is a way debian is confortable goind, and that
allowance of proprietary modifications over other considerations is the path
we are conforable threading.

> offers lots of permission, and asks nothing.  It's more generous than
> "fair".  The GPL is "fair": it offers many permissions, but some of
> them can only be exercised if you pass the same permissions on to
> others.  That is, it's a copyleft.  But it's probably the most
> restrictive you can be and still be "fair".

Whatever. you want to modify ocaml, and not give back your changes to the
community. You have no sympathy from me, neither probably from a waste
majority of the debian project.

Also you lying, claiming consensus, while there is no such thing, doesn't
endear you to me.

> The QPL isn't even close to that line of "fair"ness: It is a copyleft
> which requires that even more permissions be granted to the initial
> author.  I get some rights to the initial author's code, but he
> insists that I give him not only the same rights to my code (which
> would be a "fair" copyleft), but much more.

Well, you get to use the authors code, but he is not allowed to get your
modifications back ? Well, we should not use the same definition for fair

> I don't think this idea of "fair"ness is explicit in the DFSG right
> now, but it's an important component of Freedom.  It's also a superset

Sure, but are you sure the debian project agrees with you on this ? And are
you a debian developer to start with ? If yes, you could submit a GR for this,
and try to obtain the 5 seconds you would need for it to pass.


Sven Luther

Reply to: