Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
[Sven wants cc]
On 2004-07-20 00:40:26 +0100 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
Thread starting here probably :
http://caml.inria.fr/archives/200112/msg00000.html
Not directly about the QPL though, altough i mention the exact
licencing stand
of ocaml, including the QPLed compiler suite, in the response to the
above
message.
Thank you for the interesting reference. I don't see "RMS himself
participated in the discussion about the ocaml licence and approved
it" there, although I see some participation. Did I overlook it?
Well, i was told that i should use repetition in order to get
attention, was i
not ?
Yes, you were told that. Clearly, you don't believe everything you
read, else we wouldn't be having this exchange. I don't think it's a
good reason for pebbledashing the list.
And the thread hardly needed me to become lengthy, given the 2+ hours
i
needed to go through it before i even started posting. [...]
No, some others seem to like paddling in circles very very quickly too.
fear that we will have to remove ocaml without prior notice from
main, so
close near the sarge release [...]
Don't worry, this one looks like it will have foot-high neon warnings
all over it.
Suppose someone is using some GPLed code in violation of the GPL,
you >as
author of it, have to defend yourslef against this violation [...]
Surely that is a prosecution, not a defence?
Well, maybe, but in this case, the crime is the violation of the
licence, and
you defend against said crime. [...]
You defend against said crime if you are accused of said crime.
Please, get the terms the right way round, else you will confuse many
people.
"Potential licence breaker"? You mean the licensee? That's not a
good
attitude towards users, "let's assume they're all potential
lawbreakers".
Well, tell me what reason there would be for a law suit if there was
no
licence violation ?
To terminate the licence, or cause the licensee intolerable expense.
and let me tell you that i seriously doubt that a french
court, under french law, would be amene to filling bogus law suite
intented to
harass innocent third parties, but then i hear this is not the case
in the US.
For example, those "nazi relic sale sites" suits sounded bogus to me.
Has the law been changed to prevent them?
I also remember seeing extreme criticism of the way the French justice
system investigates complex cases on French TV recently. So, the
French system is not immune from criticism, even within its own
country.
And what about our attitude toward our upstream authors ?
It's pink.
Do you think it is not important ?
No.
And that it is our due that they give away their code ?
No.
And again, if i were to release a GPLed work, and some US corporation
decide
to include, in violation of the GPL, code of it in their own
proprietary work,
what chance i have to get them to stop it ?
As much chance as any other copyright holder.
Really ?
Yes.
Most probably i would not
know, and if i knew, i would just drop it, since i have no chance to
ever win
such an action, and stand to loose more money than i own in it anyway.
That's your choice.
the stated court. Now, if you are sure that France does not allow the
No i am not, i am no lawyer after all, but this seems reasonable, and
our
judges have enough work as is without giving in to bullshit lawsuits.
Sadly, very few legal systems can be depended upon to do the
"reasonable" thing in all cases, so I hope you understand that more
convincing argument is required.
plaintiff's venue to hear this case, then this wouldn't cause ocaml
to be
non-free, but then why cause confusion by having this clause there?
Well, probably because it was copied verbatim from the QPL, because
upstream
are academic researchers, no evil company with a legal batallion [...]
Are INRIA the upstream? It clearly has some legal people, as it
co-produced a new software licence recently posted to this list. Have
they not asked them?
The INRIA Strategic Plan 2003-2007 s4.1: "Mastering all aspects of
intellectual property rights is necessary to lead a policy of
diffusion of open source software."
It means changes in French law could make ocaml non-free, which
sucks.
Well, the same would go about US patent law and other stuff ?
Yes, but limited to its freedom in the US.
And was i
consulted when it was decided to report about my every debian
activity to the
US secret services ?
Pardon?
I am aware that the questions of termination clauses are being
discussed in
another debian-legal thread.
Err, one which i maybe not follow, please provide a pointer, as i did
for you
earlier. And i don't understand what the termination clause has to do
with
this.
The worry is that choice of venue is an effective termination clause.
Termination clauses are discussed in the debian-legal thread with the
subject "termination clauses" starting
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00510.html
[...] Would a d-d-a post when a summary reaches
consensus on the -legal list help?
Well, this would be too late wouldn't it, since consensus would be
reached,
and the ftp-masters/RM or whoever else would be in charge would be
strongly
counseled by debian-legal to remove the packages from main without
prior
notice.
Possibly. I don't see that's particularly different from the current
situation, apart from you getting an earlier chance to answer without
following N posts here.
Same as your politician which inform you that the law has been voted,
nice to know, but too late to do anything about it.
Again, NOT HELPFUL.
like
to be informed if there is some likeliness of disaster happening.
Subscribe.
Sure, would you pay me for the time spent reading it ?
Only if you pay me for mine.
Already i follow too
many mailing lists, and as i am not lawyer inclined, the real
info/noise ratio
is too low to be worth considering.
Hypocrite.
Brian has apologised to my satisfaction, and I have apologised to
him for
my erroneous allegation. I am sorry you seem to have have rejected
his
apology and are still basing your view on my mistaken comment.
Well, i have not read it maybe ? There were how many mails in this
threads?
It was sent privately, off-list to us two, IIRC.
Do you know constructive criticism? Hello? Anyone in?
And, did i not offer constructive critism of the summary and nobody
replied ?
If you mean http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00548.html
then you had one reply, but most of your post was already being
discussed elsewhere, so we probably have to wait awhile.
[...] most of
the responses i got where full of bullshit. So who is not being
helpfull.
You. Possibly others too, but you.
If you want to start a real discussion, there are two points that
deserve
interest :
1) Is it reasonable or not for debian to accept a licence which
forces
modifications to be sent upstream.
As I've written, I'm not sure about this. I am thinking about it, but
I think it's probably requiring a royalty or other fee to be paid to
the licensor.
[...] and free software in general
looses (same as it looses if you release stuff under the BSD and
not the
GPL).
I don't think starting the copyleft debate in this thread is any help
whatsoever.
2) does a choice of venue really is non-free ? [...]
There is no cast-iron argument, but it feels non-free to require such
a huge potential out-of-pocket cost to be borne by licensees. Also,
there doesn't seem to be any coherent free argument for it. The most
common argument is that it allows the licensor to unilaterally declare
themselves an advantage, which I don't think is necessarily good.
And finally are these points really worth fighting about ? [...]
Yes. Each of them has a significant consequence:
1. Can free software demand on-request payment in kind? Does this do
that?
2. Can free software require out-of-pocket temporary payment by the
user?
No, you see, if i am speaken reasonably to, i know how to respond in
kind.
By putting so many words into my mouth, like you did above?!?
--
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: