Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.

[David Nusinow <david_nusinow@verizon.net>]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 06:46:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Great.  Please suggest an example free license with a forced upstream
> distribution clause.  It may be a copyleft or not, at your choice.

I don't have a particular one nor am I going to go hunt one down for us to drag
this conversation out longer than it has to. I'd rather stick to the point that
I'm trying to argue, which is solely based on forced distribution of changes
upstream.

> 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.

Ok, I misunderstood your question. I assumed Sven would want the changes. This
would classify as discrimination against Sven, and would fail the DFSG.
Fortunately, this is not necessarily the case with forced upstream distribution
clauses.

> 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.

I'm sorry, I don't understand how you got from "send mods to initial author" to
"every download requires a corresponding mail to the initial author." Could you
clarify?

> >> 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.

Ok then, since this would fail the fee test by my definition of the word fee.
But fortunately I've never seen a forced upstream distribution clause with this
requirement, which would make it non-free.
 
> >> 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.

I don't consider this a valid argument. You reveal your identity distributing
changes downstream as well. Furthermore, nowhere in the DFSG is privacy
guaranteed (and I won't accept discrimination as a valid reason for this
because the license is not written with the intent to discriminate against
people who need to keep their identity secret).

> >> 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.

No, I meant 7, but 3 applies as well, thanks for clarifying for me.

> >> 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.

Please don't make me propose some fantasy license so we can go through these
arguments all over again. I'm not here to argue for the sake of arguing, so
please don't ask me to do so. So far you've constructed a bunch of extringent
requirements that would make forced upstream distribution of modifications
non-free, but I've seen nothing that convinces me that the basic concept is
universally non-free. 

I don't believe that forced upstream distribution is necessarily free mind you,
just that the extringent requirements in the actual license need to be taken in
to account, which is what I meant by "level of detail" in an earlier mail.
Ultimately, I think the Desert Island Test needs refinement, because as it is,
it strikes me as rather crude.

 - David Nusinow