Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 01:03:06PM +0100, Edmund Grimley-Evans wrote:
> luther@debian.org <luther@debian.org>:
>
> > >> 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.
>
> > >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 ?
>
> I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a
> secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor
Well, if they can't abide with the term of the licence, nobody is forcing them
to use the software in question. Compare that if someone has some GPLed
software whose otherwise constraints stop you from freely distributing it. It
is common knowledge that this means you cannot distribute it at all.
> company with 500-100 employees. A lot of what we do is temporarily
> confidential, in that we don't want the rest of the world finding out
> what we are working on until there is an official announcement. We use
So what. if upstream is aware of it enough to make a request, the secret is
out anyway, and also notice that clause 6) only applies once there is
distribution. So, either you play by the licence, or you work on something
else.
> free software. We even use ML in some projects, though I personally
> use Haskell. Sometimes we might want to distribute software that uses
> a free library to selected partners, with whom carefully drafted
> non-disclosure agreements have been signed. I can't imagine the legal
> department accepting anything like 6c.
Well, then you don't use the library, and that's it. Altough, i would be
greatly interested if you provided us with the interpretation of your legal
department over this issue.
> > And do you consider that violation of a licence is also admissible in fear of
> > breaching privacy ?
>
> Sorry, I don't understand that question.
I also don't understand yours, so ...
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: