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

Re: Re: Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free

On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, luther@debian.org wrote:
> > > > Thanks, but in all this thread, i have not seen a single reasonable
> > > > suggestion, so i have some doubts about this.
> > > 
> > > Yes, you have: dual-license under the GPL.  It's a completely reasonable,
> > 
> > Thanks all the same. It is unreasonable, since it is totally opposite to what
> > upstream is trying to achieve.
> According to my best interpretation of msgid:[🔎] 20040719163412.GA11755@pegasos,
> OCaml upstream wants to either:
> 1) be able to take other people's modifications proprietary.  That's fine
> for them, it's just non-free for us.

Oh, ok. do we have a consensus on that ? could you point out why in clear
points of the DFSG, and not some far fetched and controversed island paradise
metahpors. Notice that the FSF doesn't seem toi think so, and it would make
the BSD non-free, would it not ? 

> OR
> 2) Wants to be able to relicence OCaml to others under a proprietary licence
> for a fee, in order to fund further development.  That's even finer, and can
> be done by either writing it all themselves (and hence having nobody else's
> licence to worry about), or getting copyright assignments or
> totally-permissive grants from everyone whose contributions they incorporate
> into OCaml.

Well, sure. or maintaining a dual tree, which is a pain. Remember, the ocaml
team is at best 6 or so people, without legal advisories (i was told some year
back that the INRIA legal council is a joke with regard to that kind of

Well, anyway, ... Ok, i will follow advice, and start a new thread. abotu this
whole mess.

> 1) is non-free, no matter what licence they use.  2) doesn't require the QPL
> (which I feel is non-free for a variety of reasons).

Ah, and the FSF strongly encouraging me to give them copyright of any
contribution to an FSF project is not ?

> I understand you know upstream and their foibles, and that's great -- it's

Yeah, and years of licence discussion and haggling with them to obtain what we
have. Now, if i come forward and tell them the QPL is non-free, i imagine them
already thinking "what do they want now, 3 years ago, both them and the FSF
said the QPL was ok ? Why should i ever believe them again on a subjet like
this" especially if the only suggestion is "use the GPL".

> what maintainers are for.  If they don't want to be involved in yet another
> licencing flamewar, I respect them for that.  They have their agenda they


> want to follow.  But Debian has one as well, and when the two conflict,

Sure, but please hold it post sarge release, or go fight binary kernel module
writers, which are in much worse violation of the licences, and even a threat
to the future of free software.

> there will be discussion.  You can help upstream by summarising the result
> of this discussion for them.  From what I can see, one of the major

Yeah, but when i started to discuss real issues, like the question of fee for
data transfer in clause 6c, or the dureation of the requirement, nobody
discussed it, so ...

> objections you have is that you don't want to be the bearer of bad news --

No, i don't want to break all credibility with upstream. credibility i may
need when another real issue shows up, like the fact that some code in ocaml
was under a non-free licence, and the copyright holder ended being HP, who
lost the stack of paper about it in the DEC->Compaq->HP migration, and thus
the code was irremediably lost to free software, and had to be rewritten,
which is what upstream did.

> that the licence that the OCaml people have carefully chosen is violently
> disliked by several people on d-legal.  Unfortunately, life is full of bad
> news.

But was fine three years ago when they chose it, and this had some influence
about their chosing of it. What thrust will they have in our decisions if we
don't stand by it, especially as i am sure most people participating in this
have not read previous threads about this issue ? 

> > > well not be applicable in this particular case, but it's still a sane and
> > 
> > No, it is not applicable here, i have explained why various times, and it is
> > not reasonable for me to suggest this to upstream.
> So don't suggest it to them then.

So, please don't suggest this to me.

> > > reasonable suggestion in most cases, and fits my explanation of "course of
> > > action" exactly.
> > 
> > Sure, but totally irrealistic.
> In this specific case, and only known because of your knowledge of upstream. 

So, did anyone here care about my knowledge ? You didn't even bothered to
consult me, or others of the ocaml debian team, and engagedin a course of
action which may result in having ocaml removed from sarge without chance of
redemption, and i doubt that the RM will hold the release until this is
solved. And then you wonder why i feel a little upset ? 

> Glenn's arguing that it's a good general course of action, and you're saying
> it sucks in this case.  You're arguing totally different points --
> basically, you're both right.

Yeah, but he is ignoring the fact that the reasonsing making it a reasonable
course of action and having guided Qt licence change is heavily messed in with
GPL compatibility and libraries, while the ocaml case is not. one time, ok,
but then, no.

> > discourteous of you, especially after you (plural and impersonal you) all
> > dragged me into this mud pit and away from more meaningfull debian work.
> We did no dragging.  You chose to enter the discussion (with a big, noisy

Sure you did. With the threat to having ocaml removed from main at the last
minute of the sarge release, and thus voiding over 2 years of heavy work ? As
said, two persons of the ocaml team aproched me asking me about what this
means for ocaml and the load of packages which depends on it, and you expect
me to stay cool, and accept to be bullshited ? No way.

And Brian was not really tactfull either.

> splash, I might add).  If you like, you can place equal blame on upstream --
> they chose the licence we're now discussing.  <grin>

Yes, and they chose it with our approval, or even because of our and FSFs and
others approval 3-4 years ago. So, where does the blame go them ?

> > > You're treated as if you're deliberately rude and uncooperative, which you
> > > certainly are.  If you believe you're being treated poorly, then perhaps
> > > you should reevaluate the way you're treating us.
> > 
> > Well, sorry, but the way i was dragged into this is a bit rude to me also, and
> > furthermore past experience here, and the tratment i subsequently got from
> > branden and assufield and a few others on irc make me very very negatively
> > disposed on debian-legal. 
> "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".  Reacting to arrogance
> with more arrogance doesn't help, it just diminishes you in the eyes of

Bah, i am already lost to spectators anyway, i have no liking for the more
finer discussion that is handled here, and i didn't see you or anyone else
replying to the bullshit i was getting, nor anyone expressed concern over the
many many mails about chinese dissidents i was forced to read to stay on top
of this.

> spectators.  It's even worse when there's no immediate justification for it. 

Well, if i have been offensive and rude to an email which was constructive i
apologize for it. for the rest, well i have been under Branden's english and
discuss things in email school, so what do you expect. And any rude language i
use here, i did learn on debian mailing lists.

> I don't know (or at least can't recall) your past history with some other
> d-legal participants, but your messages in this thread have made you look
> like a right prat.

How would you have reacted if someone came with a bug report out of nothing
like Brian did, without pointing to this discussion, and not even bothering to
coordinate with debian-legal, over an issue thought settled years ago ?
Especially if one has already been through it back then, and has to read
hundreds of mail of chinese dissidents and desert island without the least bit
of common sense and relation to the case at hand ? And you can't even ignore
it, or you will be said to not care, and deserve what you get.

> >   also sprach Brian M. Carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx>
> >   [2004.07.09.2322 +0200]:
> >   > debian-legal has adjudged the QPL non-free, and the maintainer
> >   > refuses to move this package to non-free;
> > 
> > Which clearly is a misrepresentation, if not an outward lie.
> > 
> > > Neither of these are rude.  I'm not going to bother pursuing this any further.
> > > Brian has a strong track record of being reasonable, and you have a strong
> > > track record of being rude.
> > 
> > Sure, sure, whatever. I expect you to retract the position about Brian on the
> > above. And because Brian is one of your crowd, it doesn't make his position
> > any truer.
> You are aware that Brian !== Brian?  Brian Thomas Sniffen, your primary
> combatant in this thread, is not Brian M. Carlson, the author of the snippet
> you quoted above?

Oh ....  , well, i am really sorry about this. and i apologize to Brian about this
confusion. shame on me for not noticing ... but then it is hard to notice such
details after many hundred of emails.


Sven Luther

Reply to: