Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:33:21PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> wrote:
> 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?
Probably, but you're still working against the author's wishes in that
circumstance. I'd rather a licence that didn't try and compel me to break
the law in the first place.
> You'd lose the right to distribute further modifications
> after becoming aware that it would be illegal, but...
Hey, it's an arbitrary termination clause! Just move to an embargoed
country, and you can screw most of the western world! </sarcasm>
> >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.
s/against/that/?
Hence 'unrelated'. Defining who the 'given parties' are in any particular
instance of forced unrelated distribution is useful, but the fact that, for
some values of 'given parties', you might end up breaking the law, makes the
clause very non-free.
Luckily the QPL gives Debian a bit of an escape hatch, although I'm still
not 100% sure it's enough, but see my previous missive to Brian for more on
that.
> >> 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.
I thought the purpose of the DFSG and such were so that, for anything in
main, you knew you could exercise all of the freedoms listed in the DFSG
without fear of getting a summons. Now you're saying we're back to the
"before doing anything, read debian/copyright" system? No thanks.
Patents are a separate issue, and I wish you'd stop using them as a means of
justifying other abuses of freedom.
- Matt
Reply to: