Re: Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 02:37:52PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:19:53PM +0200, luther@debian.org wrote:
> > Thanks for not CCing me as i have repeatedly asked here.
>
> Please fix your mailer to set a corresponding header, instead of
> expecting every subscriber to this list to do your work for you.
Ok, please tell me how, some say i should set mail-followup-to, other swear
that this is evilness incarned, and that i should use reply-to or whatever.
And since i was replying using lynx, my options where really not what they
should be.
> > >On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:07:57PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > >> Furthermore, as the choice of law is the french law, preliminary information
> > >> seem to indicate that any procedure should be domiciliated at the domicil of
> > >> the defendor, which would make this clause illegal and thus void.
>
> > >Good, then upstream should not object to this void clause being removed
> > >from the license.
>
> > Sure whatever. i have done my homework, asked for advice, which altough legal
> > was not exactly of this field, and this is really non conclusive.
>
> > And i will _NOT_ go to upstream about this issue without solid evidence that
> > this is really a problem, evidence that i have not seen upto now.
>
> Bogus clauses in licenses are always a problem because they're either
> not really void, or because they can have side effects that render the
> entire license invalid (or at a minimum, the make the license
> unnecessarily verbose and confusing, resulting in an imbalance of
> wealth in favor of lawyers).
Yeah, so, still, this is not really convincing, it seems that removing this
particular clause only protects licence violators, so i don't clearly see
what we gain in forbiding it.
> What becomes clear to me is that you're not actually interested in
Ah ? Well, the only suggestion i have gotten until now is to ask upstream to
use the GPL. and when i expressed my concern about the points mentioned,
nobody replied to me, well not about them anyway, until today.
> resolving any of the problems with the QPL; you're only interested in
> getting a rubber-stamp from debian-legal that this license is ok, or
No, what i am asking, is that if i go upstream to ask for a licence change,
after all the trouble we got over it previously, i want to have solid evidence
not to be laughed at. I don't think that going upstream with a "please use the
GPL" suggestion and little else will get me good reception by them, and it
will lower the weigth me and debian-legal carry in future clearer problems.
> barring that, arguing the list into submission. You provide no "solid
> evidence" that the choice of venue clause is truly void, but rather
Well, i have asked legal advice here, from a friend who is not really in
contract law, what have all of you, except one, done here ? Just mussing and
guessing, is it not ?
Also, the fact that the QPL was ok all those years, that RMS and the FSF seems
to be ok with it, and that we are so close the sarge release make this
discussion rather ill-timed and renders me a bit doubtfull.
> expect us to provide the contrary. Debian cannot afford to ship
> software under licenses that contain requirements that we cannot
> "solidly prove" are harmful to us.
Bullshit. we have compromised in the past, we have been shipping ocaml and
other software over the years, and seriously, i see no way this can be in any
way harmfull to us, and this is _NOT_ what is at cause here anyway.
You are the first one speaking about the threat to debian, and the
possibilities of upstream suing us. Also, if i would be sued, i would much
prefer it to be in versaille, and not in the US or somewhere unlawfull-like,
and i believe that it will be me, as packager of this software, and thus the
modificator, who would be sued, am i not ?
Still, both clause mentioned here cause only trouble to people violating the
licences, and not wanting to give the modification back to upstream and thus
to the community at large. Is this really something debian stands for ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: