Re: Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
>
> #index top up prev next
> _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
>
> Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
> _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> * To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
> * Subject: Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
> * From: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org>
> * Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:21:25 +1000
> * In-reply-to: <[🔎] E1BnDrz-0004zF-00@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> * Mail-followup-to: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
> * Message-id: <[🔎] 20040721152125.GB32318@hezmatt.org>
> * Old-return-path: <mpalmer@debian.org>
> * References: <[🔎] 20040720103253.GA6332@mimosa.informatik.uni-freiburg.de> <[🔎] 20040720103253.GA6332@mimosa.informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
> <[🔎] 20040720110524.GD29696@hezmatt.org> <[🔎] E1BmsuT-0000yi-00@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <[🔎] E1BmsuT-0000yi-00@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> <[🔎] E1BmuCa-0005Zp-00@sledge.mossbank.org.uk> <[🔎] 20040720231951.GH30967@hezmatt.org> <[🔎] 20040720231951.GH30967@hezmatt.org>
> <[🔎] 20040721001404.GZ667@zewt.org> <[🔎] E1BnDrz-0004zF-00@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> * User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i
> _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:58:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Of course, XXX = "you must distribute source, too" is also a restriction.
>> >Again, guidelines. (If the complaint is that these guidelines can't be
>> >used without interaction with Debian and having the same result, then it's
>> >just a complaint that they're guidelines--this can't be "fixed" without
>> >turning it into something other than guidelines.)
>>
>> I would argue against any assertion that there's strong consensus that
>> "distribute to upstream authors" is a "worse" restriction than
>> "distribute source too".
>
>I'll certainly throw my hat in in favour of "to upstream" being worse than
>"source if binaries". 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).
>
>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.
Bullshit, as any thread BRian participated in seems to be anyway.
You obviously could not be bothered to read QPL 6a, which covers distribution
of stuff back to upstream. Not only are you free to chose the licence, but
furthermore, it clearly states :
a. You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable
forms of these items are also able to receive and use the
complete machine-readable source code to the items without
any charge beyond the costs of data transfer.
So if there is any non-negligible cost involved in answering that upstream
request, you are free to charge it to upstream.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: