Re: Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.

[luther@debian.org]

Arg, another poster who didn't CC me as asked. Well, let's see if the
mail-followup-to will work next time, altough since i have use lynx for this
reply, there is no chance it will work.

>Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>:
>
>> The reproach which is being done is twofold :
>
>Perhaps two separate threads would be justified. I'm only replying on
>the first "reproach".
>
>>       c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
>>       initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
>>       then you must supply one.
>
>> Now, the clause which causes problem is the 6c, which states that upstream
>> might also want to get those works linked with the software. I understand that
>> this may be considered non-free, but let's go over the DFSG points one by one,
>> and not start with discutable chinese disident or desert island stuff which
>> only muddy the water.
>
>As I see it 6c is a serious privacy problem. Perhaps the requirement
>for privacy is not directly implied by any of DFSG, but I can't
>imagine people being very happy with the requirement to let the
>initial developers know how the software is being used. Do you think
>upstream really need this clause?

I asked upstream, but didn't get a response yet. Since it is french holydays
time, i doubt i will get one for the next weeks, if ever.

Still i question the unsupported claim of a privacy breach you make. What is
the privacy problem here ? And i don't want to hear about chinese dissidents
or desert islands ? 

And do you consider that violation of a licence is also admissible in fear of
breaching privacy ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther