[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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



Thanks for CCing me as i asked. I now set my .muttrc to enable
mail-followup-to, but until i am first CCed, this is not gonna work in lynx.

>   #index top up prev next
>     _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>   [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
>
>                                                           Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
>     _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>     * To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
>     * Subject: Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
>     * From: "Bernhard R. Link" <blink@informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
>     * Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:32:53 +0200
>     * In-reply-to: <20040720020622.GA16966@pegasos>
>     * Mail-followup-to: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
>     * Message-id: <20040720103253.GA6332@mimosa.informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
>     * Old-return-path: <blink@informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
>     * Organization: Universitaet Freiburg, Institut f. Informatik
>     * References: <20040720020622.GA16966@pegasos>
>     * User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
>     _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>* Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> [040720 04:06]:
>> DFSG 1) it was claimed that giving the linked items back to upstream on
>> request is considered a fee, which may invalidate this licence.
>
>> How much of
>> this claim is realistic, and does it constitute a fee ? After all, you lose
>> nothing if you give it to upstream, so it doesn't cost you.
>
>Wow, this is quite a strong assertion. Especially after many people
>describes situations where it cost you and/or brings you in risk of
>costs.

Ok, let's go back to reality.

First, the upstream author has to ask you for the code, and it seems clear now
that this asking need to be in a personal letter asking you for the code in
question. I would like to hear strong legal evidence from anyone disputing
this.

Second, the cost of data transfer, as covered by QPL 6a, can be charged to the
upstream author.

Third, you are free to choose any free licence to fullfill this requirement.

So, please explain me what the real cost is and where the risk is ? Real
example, not some wild elucubration as you are quoting.

>> DFSG 5) and 6) it was claimed that one of those is broken by the desert island
>> or chinese dissident tests, i have seen no consensus as a quick overview of
>> the thread prior to my involvement shows. I personally dispute those claims as
>> not only irrealistic, but also as not applying here, since the request should
>> be done nominally.
>
>What do you mean by "nominally"? That when I'm "initial deleveloper" and
>want to stop someone on an desert island from using my software, I have
>to know his name before? Or give an evil goverment a reguest they shall
>under my name place each residents name on it and give it to him?

I recuse the desert island test and any mention on this. It is ridicoulous,
and doesn't fail in this case anyway.

First, the upstream author has to know of the modificator and its
modification, and then inform in a legal binding way the modificator that it
requests a copy of his work under a free licence.

Furthermore, the cost of data transfer can be charged to the requestor, as per
6a. So, if you are on a desert island, it is upto the upstream author to make
sure the guy on the desert island gets the request in the first place, and
cover the cost of the request. 

Now can we stop this holyday time and wish of beach deviant thread, and go
back to real work ? 

>For DFSG 5: What about the group of people that is in countries that
>impose an embargo or export restrictions on countries the "initial
>developer" is in.

Well, i don't care, this is another such elucubration. This hasn't stopped us
from maintaining our main archive in the US, despite its ridicoulous rules on
export, which are much more non-free than any chinese dissident test you could
dream about.

If you are not happy with the inherent non-freeness of the US regulations, you
are free to vote with your feet and go live in the free world, but this has no
incidence on the DFSG-freeness of it. 

>Consider something like a ssl-library was under this licence in the
>times where those were more strictly handled and the "initial developer"
>was outside the USA.

Well, i don't recognize the authority of stupid US regulation on my code, i
don't care. And i am already upset enough that debian choose to report all my
debian activity to the US security agencies, without you coming flundering
with such bullshit here.

And if you still consider this, what about some hypothetical smallish country
which has a law outlawing the GPL ? Would that make the GPL non-free ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther



Reply to: