Re: QPL non-DFSG compliance? What future for OCaml in Debian?
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 09:20:31PM -0400, mdpoole@troilus.org wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> >> You assume that upstream is less likely to abuse the license or courts
> >
> > Well, in this particular case, knowing the upstream author and the french
> > judicial system, i know that he is less likely to do so. My own guess is that
> > it would never go beyond a few email exchange, or maybe a formal letter.
>
> See the "Tentacles of Evil" test for why this does not let us ignore
> non-free license clauses.
Please cite me soe real DFSG violation, and not some bogus test.
> > Unless the violating side would be a big corporation and deliberatedly
> > violated the licence. And since both microsoft and sun would have interest in
> > the ocaml code base and technology, this later may be understandable.
> > I don't know about other authors though, but i have serious doubts of anyone
> > being able to engage into unfounded harassment tactics without a corrupt judge
> > to stand by its side, and i do believe that this is much more likely to happen
> > in the US and in other unlawfull countries than in the french court chosen
> > here.
>
> Both Microsoft and Sun do business in France, right? I'm going to
> take a wild guess and say they have offices somewhere convenient to be
> sued -- perhaps even in the district of the French court specified
> now. The bigger and more multi-national a company is, the more likely
> they can be conveniently sued. That also correlates well with the
> likely losses if they "steal" free software (i.e. they violate the
> license).
Well, microsoft is widely known to have stolen load of free and non-free
software, have they not ?
> >> than a user (or perhaps that the expected damage due to upstream abuse
> >> is less). It is not clear to me that this is the case. Do we really
> >
> > Yeah, well the opposite is not clear to me also, and i happen to know the
> > people involved personally, so i am able to make that judgement call.
> > Furthermore, it is my package, and i belive i am the person responsible for
> > making said judgement call, since i would be the first sued in case of
> > problems, would i not ?
>
> Ask RedHat whether they would be the first sued. See below.
Ask yourself how you would feel if someone violated the licence on your code ?
> >> gain by making it more difficult for users to defend their permitted
> >> use of the software, given that we allow upstream to specify which
> >> laws should be used?
> >
> > Well, cite me one example of such harassment ? Do we really want to go rigid
> > over this while it is only pure blind speculation and fear ? And in this case,
> > is our fear for our user any more acceptable than upstream's fear to get its
> > licence violated, or even to get sued over it in his own right ?
>
> Is SCO "blind speculation?" How much has been spent by IBM, Daimler
> Chrystler, and AutoZone to defend against those lawsuits? How does
> that compare to how much has been spent on GPL enforcement in all
> time?
Well, since they claimed copyright one some amiga/powerpc/apsu header Geert
has privately written, they can't have real claims. This whole story seems to
me a outgrowth of a lawsuit-sick system. Debian-legal suffers from the same
symptom though.
> Can you cite examples where some GPL violator got away with it because
> the author could not sue? There are well-known cases where the author
Well, i believe i had some code in that linux kernel SCO rejected the GPL
validity one. You may also have.
> sued over GPL infringement and got his way, even when the violator was
> somewhere else. There are many more cases where the author did not
> have to go to court -- polite letters, or PR campaigns by the free
> software community, were enough to get compliance.
Well, lot of lost time it probably cost. lost time a normal people can't
afford.
But let's stop here, and follow in the other more rationale thread.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: