Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

David Nusinow <david_nusinow@verizon.net> writes:

>> 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.

Great.  Please suggest an example free license with a forced upstream
distribution clause.  It may be a copyleft or not, at your choice.

I do think Sven might disagree, and have reason to be just a little
testy that I've made spamming him a condition of distributing
modifications to my software.  If Linux were licensed that way, Debian
would have to send one kernel source tree per download per kernel
copyright holder to poor Sven.  That would be thousands of kernel
sources.  Surely, enough to put debian.org and its mirrors into some
unhappy territory.

And gosh, that is a problem for the mirrors: if distributing modified
copies requires that the mods be sent to the initial author, then a
mirror or distributor such as Debian will have to send a copy on
*every download* even though it hasn't modified the software.

>> 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?

Because those are expensive.  Real mail costs a lot more than e-mail.

>> 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)

Because it compels me to reveal my identity to distribute changes,
which is a cost.

>> 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.

No it doesn't.  My license passes on to them.  It's just that your
changes have to be under a more or less restrictive license.  Ah, you
mean DFSG 3.

>> 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.

OK.  I look forward to a proposal for a free license which requires
changes be sent to the upstream author.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu