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

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

luther@debian.org wrote:
> First, thanks for not CCing me on this, as i asked.
> 
> >Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> >> 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
> >
> >That is the whole problem with the venue clause.  It makes it too easy
> >for the original developers to harass distributors.
> 
> Well, only if you live in a country whose legal system allows suing
> for every ridicoulous reason, provided you have the found to pay for
> it. A court of venue outside of the US is rather more a guarantee of
> real justice than a threat, as i think non-US judges would be much
> less inclined to allow bullshit-claims to proceed, or judge results
> which only depends on the amount of money at ones disposal.  But
> then IANAL, and i may be dreaming or something too.
>
> Still, in this matter we need to find a balance between the right of the
> developer (who don't wish people to use the software in disrespect of the
> licence) and the wish of users who want to do modifications, and as long as
> they respect the licence, should not be furthermore molested.
> 
> The fear of harassment only comes for someone who is willingly breaking the
> licence, and seriously, do we want to encourage those ? 

The point is that you can easily harass people who _aren't_ breaking
the license.

> And finally, i know the upstream authors personnally, and i also understand
> their situation enough to know that they won't engage in any such harrasment,
> even if it was possible.

75 years + life is a long time.  Copyrights can change hands many
times during that period.  That is why debian-legal came up with the
"Tentacles of Evil" test.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu