Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:55:16AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 05:33:21PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> wrote:
> >> To be honest, I'd expect that the given example wouldn't be a problem -
> >> aren't license terms that would compel illegal behaviour generally held
> >> unenforcable?
> >
> >Probably, but you're still working against the author's wishes in that
> >circumstance. I'd rather a licence that didn't try and compel me to break
> >the law in the first place.
>
> If the author wishes us to break the law, then I don't think we have any
> obligation to follow the author's wishes.
I doubt the author's wishes were for you to break the law. They just want a
copy of your linked works / modifications. As a result of complying with
the author's wishes, you will break the law. Tough choice.
> >Patents are a separate issue, and I wish you'd stop using them as a means of
> >justifying other abuses of freedom.
>
> Why? It's the world we live in. There are certain freedoms that we
> simply can't provide, no matter how much we'd like to.
That's fine, but you keep using the patent issue to justify other abuses of
freedom as being OK. "Well, it's OK for patents, so it's OK for this other
thing here".
- Matt
Reply to: