Re: Re: Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:07:45AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> 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 ?
That upstream can give my modifications to a third party under a different
licence, and I can't do the same for his modifications? Do you really need
a separate consensus of why that's non-free?
As I read 3(b) of the Trolltech licence, the original developer gets carte
blanche over my modifications. That, by itself, is the death knell. Add
to that 6(c), where the original developer can compel me to distribute to
him, and we're very deeply into non-free territory.
That is totally different to the BSD licence, because nobody has any more
power to take modifications private. Everybody has the same freedoms with
everyone else's modifications. If OCaml were under a BSD-like licence, I
could happily sell binary-only versions of OCaml to anyone I liked, and so
could the INRIA people. Under the QPL, INRIA can sell binary-only versions
including my code, but I can't do the same. That imbalance is one of the
reasons I don't like the QPL.
> > 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
> stuff).
Life is not always simple.
> > 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 ?
We've just recently been through this discussion with the request-tracker3
licence. Requiring that contributors to the official code base assign
copyright or give a permissive licence to their contributions is not
non-free, it's just a condition of contributing. However, when that
copyright assignment or licence grant is a condition of the licence, that's
non-free, *especially* when combined with a compelled distribution clause.
It's just hideous.
Basically, if INRIA won't accept contributions without an assignment or
permissive grant, I won't complain. That's their choice as project
managers. Nothing should compel them to accept *any* contribution they
don't want, regardless of the reason. However, saying that the permission
grant is accepted as a condition of being able to make private
modifications is non-free.
> > 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".
They can't believe us. Never could. If they trust us (or the FSF)
completely, they're insane. We're a separate organisation, which, over
time, can change it's mind on any number of issues.
More to the point, 3 years ago we weren't doing licence analyses with
anywhere near the degree of rigour we are doing now. That's caused a few
problems, but it's also caused a number of positive relicencings, and
several removals of material we most certainly should not have been
distributing.
> > 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.
The existence of worse evils do not excuse lesser evils.
> > 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 ?
We can't stand by a decision if it turns out that our analysis was initially
flawed. Look at the GFDL issue.
More speciously, consider the issue of a flat earth as opposed to a round
earth. Initially, the earth was considered flat. Eventually, compelling
evidence was found that the earth was round, and so the previous decision
was overturned.
If we are required to be held to a decision for all time, you can rest
assured that no decisions will ever truly be made, because we'd have to be
totally and completely sure we have got all the issues before making that
decision.
> > > > 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.
AAAAAARGH! You're getting annoyed because a general-case decision turns out
not to apply in your particular case. It happens. Deal with it.
> > > > 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
Because no firm, final decision had been made.
> action which may result in having ocaml removed from sarge without chance of
Bringing the maintainer into the discussion will, in general, have very
little effect on whether a particular licence is non-free. In this case
there's even less point because you've stated that upstream will not
relicence. Hence, your only real use, as maintainer, (talking to upstream
about changing to a free licence) is lost.
As a debian-legal contributor you have as much chance of effecting a change
as anyone else, but you've already said that you're not interested in being
a debian-legal contributor (for your own, quite reasonable, reasons).
> > 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.
QPL->GPL in the case of libraries is an excellent migration, yes. However,
the QPL is similar to the GPL in it's general intent, it just has some
little tweaks that sway the balance in favour of the licensor a bit too
much. So someone who wants a nicely free licence to replace the QPL with,
no matter what the software it applies to, will generally be pointed to the
GPL.
> > > 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.
Yeah, he might have phrased his bug titles better, but you have really shown
the way to overreact to a problem of phrasing.
> > 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 ?
INRIA for being eternal optimists? </sarcasm>
Honestly, there is no real 'blame' as such. There's just a feeling within
debian-legal that the QPL smells a little, and OCaml happens to be licenced
under it. Bad things happen.
> > > > 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
You weren't to me, particularly. Still aren't -- but I've grown a big
patience gland over the last few years. But I'm quite sure there are people
who had no real opinion on you a week ago who think you're a pretty big dork
now.
> 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.
The discussion does tend to wander, which is why we have summaries. If it's
done right, it should contain all of the relevant info without a thousand
e-mails on the applicability of the dissident test.
At the end of it all, you did *choose* to enter the discussion. Perhaps you
felt you *had* to, but you still have free will.
> > 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 ?
I'd (hopefully) look at reasons for the bug report, and ask the reporter for
more information. If no further information was forthcoming, I'd probably
eventually close the bug as erroneous or unsubstantiated. If a summary had
been prepared and I read it and disagreed with it, I'd probably get into a
d-legal flamewar.
The difference between that and your behaviour is that you've tried to get
into the discussion three quarters of the way through the process, and
probably gotten well and truly frustrated because of the large quantity of
fluff in the thread. I reiterate -- there will be summary before anything
final and definite is done. If you don't like the fluff, read the summary
when it is prepared and argue to that.
- Matt
Reply to: