Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:21:25AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I'll certainly throw my hat in in favour of "to upstream" being worse than
> "source if binaries".
As will I, but I'll also claim that "to upstream" is still not non-free.
> Firstly, there's an "advancing freedom" argument --
> ensuring recipients have source code (if they want it) has a great practical
> advantage to freedom. I hope you agree with that (if not, we have more
> fundamental disagreements than this small matter).
It could very easily be argued that by forcing distribution to an upstream
author that they will possibly release the code to the public where the
downstream recipient may choose to keep such code private.
> Next, there's the issue of cost -- presumably it is of trivial cost (or even
> profitable) to me to distribute to my recipient, because otherwise I
> wouldn't be doing it. It's unlikely that distributing source alongside the
> binaries will significantly increase that cost -- and the GPL (the most
> common example of this form of distribution) specifically allows the
> recouping of distribution costs for source. However, it may not be a
> trivial cost to distribute changes back to the original author -- in cases
> previously hypothesised, it may even be illegal. It is also unlikely to be
> trivial to determine what cost I may incur in sending the changes back
> upstream at the time I decide to exercise my granted permissions.
It's fairly unlikely that the cost of distributing changes to the original
author will be that significant. Desert island and other corner case scenarios
aside that is.
> Although it's not terminal to the point at hand, these "must send back to
> the author" clauses have tended to be poorly written, having no time limit
> or other effective means of limiting my exposure, so it is even harder for
> me to determine any cost I may incur as a result of complying with my
> obligations under the licence.
This is a good point, and perhaps we need to examine this further. I could
imagine better guidelines built by consensus that worked around the issue via
these details.
> Finally, there is the matter of choice. I can choose who I distribute my
> modified version to, and hence who receives the source. I cannot choose to
> send my modifications upstream -- I am compelled to if I wish to exercise my
> granted permissions. You may argue that I can avoid sending changes
> upstream by not making changes, but that's a bollocks argument -- if I
> cannot exercise the rights guaranteed to be available by the DFSG for a free
> licence, then that licence is not free.
But the idea of sending changes downstream also constrains freedoms, just in a
different fashion. I think this argument is invalid because while you may have
the freedom to associate with only certain people under the GPL, you do not
have the freedom to associate with them in exactly the way you want.
- David Nusinow
Reply to: