Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 02:45:36AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-20 01:16:33 +0100 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:24:13AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>On 2004-07-19 19:07:58 +0100 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
> >>wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:39:14PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen
> >>>wrote:
> [...]
> >>Hrm, when did Brian claim his was the consensus view? [...]
> >Because [...]
>
> Sorry, I don't think "because" is a valid reply to "When...?"
Ok, i apologize, it seems there are two Brians, and i did some messing up with
them. Mmm, this is probably not correct english for what i am saying, but you
get my meaning.
> >>I doubt they would actively support offensive licensors either, so
> >>any such
> >>GR would be an interesting choice of the lessor of two evils.
> >Offensive licensors, again, the real problem, being that you only
> >care for
> >licence violating users, and not for the upstream authors right,
> >there is no
> >licence in this.
>
> I barely understand your words here, sorry. I care for licence-obeying
> users being able to continue using the software legally, even if the
> licensor becomes offensive. I'm not particularly worried about licence
> violators.
See my other thread for this.
> >[...] none of the terms will ever come to any
> >problematic case in this particular package.
>
> Imagine the developers you know and love being replaced with Evil
> Copyright Trolls and deciding to attack their users. Would the
> software still be free?
They won't. They own the copyright for live+70 years or so, or at least i was
told so earlier, and you can't cede copyrigth in europe.
> >If upstream is overreacting in a protective way, let's them do it,
> >especially
> >if both we and the FSF agreed to it 3-4 years ago when they chose this
> >licence.
>
> When did the FSF agree to the ocaml licence?
Well, somce 3-5 years ago, we, the FSF, and other players all agreed that the
QPL was a free licence, altough not a GPL compatible one. Upstream choose
their licence on the force of that consensus, and now we are pulling the chair
on them.
> >If we change our stand at whims, what guarantee do upstream have that
> >our position will last ? [...]
>
> I think this thread suggests it is anything but whimsical.
No, it doesn't. What other licence may we declare non-free in a few month ?
> >Hehe. I am not in the AM queue, so i can be as rude as i want. [...]
>
> Your AM should still be ashamed of your rudeness.
Well, i had no AM back then, but i had the likes of Branden and co to teach me
the fine point of debian/english mailing list participation :).
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: