Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 03:27:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> > The it seems that we've reached an impasse at this level of detail, since it
> > could well be argued that forced distribution upstream can impede or enhance
> > free software and freedom in general. As such, you can't say that forced
> > upstream distribution is inherently non-free.
>
> Sure I can. You've made the false assumption that the only argument
> for considering something non-free is that it's harmful to the Great
> and Holy Cause of Free Software. But in the case of forced
> distribution to any party, we don't have to look at secondary effects
> like that. We can just look at the direct effects: it forces me to
> find some person, contact him, send him a whole bunch of data, and
All these tasks are trivial in the vast majority of cases. Contact information
is almost always provided with the copyright information. And again, sending
the data, barring corner cases of desert islands, is trivial.
> give him a Free license to that data.
I see no issue with this in relation to the DFSG.
> Additionally, I have to secure
> rights to freely give anything else I combine into this program to the
> forcing person.
This is no different than any other license, free or non-free. Copyright is
copyright.
> Additionally, I cannot conceive of any way of doing this in a free way
> -- even if forced distribution to upstream on distribution of
> modifications is accepted as free. Can I say that you must send me
> modifications to the software I write every time you distribute? So
> on every download, fling another one my way? Can I say you must send
> them addressed to me at Sven Luther's address?
I don't see any conflict with either of these questions and the DFSG.
> Can I say you must do it by a non-digital mechanism?
This question could be asked for forced downstream source distribution as well.
Why not?
> Can I say you must sign your changes?
As above, this could be applied to downstream distribution. Why not, given the
DFSG? (The dictator test obviously would apply, but I don't know if I agree
with it as a functional tool)
> Can I require a license from you? More free than otherwise compelled
> by the copyleft? What about a non-free license, can I require that?
No, because this obviously fails DFSG 7.
> It's not just that I think these are hard questions. It's that I
> think many of them have no free answer. That makes me think that the
> question which opens this can of worms -- forced distribution -- is
> probably non-free.
I don't think it opens any can of worms greater than the one we've already
opened by allowing copyleft.
- David Nusinow
Reply to: