Re: Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:24:40PM +0200, luther@debian.org wrote:
> >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
You appear almost incapable of making an argument without throwing in a
little personal attack as well. Stick to the argument, and leave the ad
hominems out of it. I'll put you on notice here and now that if you
continue in this way, I will stop responding to your "arguments" and leave
you to your own frothing.
> 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.
I don't see how 6a relates to 6c in any real fashion. 6c is not a subclause
of 6a, so there isn't any relationship there. 6a starts by talking about
"recipients of machine-executable forms", which presumably the upstream
author wouldn't really be, since upstream is interested in the source and
not the binary.
- Matt
Reply to: