Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> wrote:
>The QPL is bad news in yet another way. Do we need a DFSG basis for "forces
>people to break the law"?
Mm. It forces people to break the law if they exercise certain freedoms.
China requires (used to require?) licensing of imported cryptography
software. If it were GPLed, distributing modified versions would be
illegal under copyright law (you couldn't actually satisfy the GPL's
requirements) and if the recipient didn't have a license, under
anti-crypto laws. Israel used to have similar provisions.
It's an interesting question. How prevelant does a law have to be before
we believe that being obliged to break it becomes non-free? Personally,
I'd be inclined to say that countries that limit exports of technology
are broken and we should treat them as if they don't exist, even though
the UK is one of them. Maybe I should make more use of my Irish
citizenship.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: