Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:20:37PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> 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.
And it could work the other way. Hell, in a licence under current
discussion, there's an explicit licence term to allow upstream to sell my
changes under a different licence of their choosing. That seems like it's
quite useful for an upstream who wanted to take my modifications 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.
A couple of years in prison isn't that costly? Because that's what I'd
imagine you'd be facing for unauthorised export to an embargoed country.
> > 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.
It's a matter of degrees and of resultant benefit. A recipient with
binaries but no source has a *lot* less freedom than a recipient with
binaries and source. An upstream author without my modifications has only a
bit less freedom than an upstream with my mods.
Furthermore, it is a loss to the community (or people I distribute to, if
you like) if I do not make the modifications to the software because I would
be forced to send my modifications upstream.
- Matt
Reply to: