Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> wrote:
>This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which says "you
>can't do that". I'm not distributing prohibited technology to an embargoed
>location by choice. I never thought "hmm, wouldn't it be cool if I sent
>this to Iran". Instead, the terms of the licence are forcing me to do that.
>Even worse, there may have been no way I could have known I would later have
>to break the law at the time I accepted the licence (by distributing my
>modifications). The author could previously have been in a friendly
>country, but happen to be in Iran when they request my libraries.
Distribution under GPL 3b has the same problem, of course. It's an
interesting issue. The QPL doesn't actually compel it, though, so
it has little influence on that specific license.
To be honest, I'd expect that the given example wouldn't be a problem -
aren't license terms that would compel illegal behaviour generally held
unenforcable? You'd lose the right to distribute further modifications
after becoming aware that it would be illegal, but...
>I have no way of knowing that my compliance with the licence will some day
>require me to break the law. It's a downright hideous licence term, and a
>pretty damn good argument for why forced unrelated distribution is a bad
>thing.
It's only an argument against forced distribution to given parties is a
problem.
>> 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
>
>But it's really dangerous to do so. Allowing such a licence into Debian
>could result in our users to fall foul of situations just like these.
Really that's a user education problem. People should be told what the
risks are ("This software may contain patents that you do not hold a
license to", for instance) and spend some time thinking about them
before exercising any of the freedoms we provide.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: