Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:06:22AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Having slept on it, I've decided that in the specific case of the QPL, this
> particular situation is not a problem for Debian, but ONLY because we can
> avoid the whole issue by making the items in question available to the general public (which we do).
Not being a problem for Debian only means that it can be legally distributed,
not that it's DFSG-free.
> Unfortunately, since there's no clear definition of "general public", I
> can't give this clause the all clear, since it might require providing
> availability to embargoed countries, or to people without computers(!), but
> if the author takes a reasonable view of "general public" (which is a bit of
> a nightmare to actually define without going nuts), I don't think we will
> have too much of a problem.
>
> We're taking a similar path with the GPL, anyway -- the non-freeness of 3b
> and 3c is OK because we're distributing under 3a.
How Debian distributes a work does not determine whether it's free or not.
The non-freeness of 3b and 3c[1] is OK because 3a, alone, is sufficient to make
the license DFSG-free; 3b and 3c are merely additional permissions on top of
that, and additional permissions never make a license less free. (None of
this is related to which options Debian actually exercises.)
> By analogy, the
> non-freeness of compelled unrelated distribution of linked items is OK(ish)
> because we're taking the "publically available" route.
If we believed that it acceptable to require people to make modifications
to the general public, then the situation might be comparable; but I believe
that most of us, at least, do not. A workaround like this being acceptable
for Debian's own use doesn't mean that it's free.
[1] if any; I believe it is, but due to 3a, there hasn't been a need to
come to a real consensus on this
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: