Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.

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

David Nusinow <david_nusinow@verizon.net> writes:

> 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.

No, you don't have to find one.  Just write a very, very simple one.
I don't think it can be done in a free way, but if you show me one,
then I'll believe you.

>> 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.

Why is this discrimination against him?  I think that's fairly
contorted, in comparison to the simplicity of saying that a Free
license cannot compel me to initiate action, only to do some things in
particular ways, and this compels me to initiate communication with somebody.

>> 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?

I asked if a free license could, in your view, require that any time
you distribute modifications, you also send a copy to the original
author.  That would require sending them on *every download*.  If
you're a mass distribution site, that's a problem.

>> >> 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.

OK; but requiring me to use my network connection is not a fee, not
even if I pay by the bit?  Is there a bright line, here?  Or just a
vague idea that some costs are large enough to be non-free, but very
small costs are not worth worrying about?

>> >> 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.

No I don't.  I can drop CDs in the street, or paint code on walls.

> 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.

I don't see how requiring that you license your material under a more
or less free license than I used when giving the material to you fails
DFSG 7.  Can you explain that to me in more detail?

>> >> 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'm also not arguing for its own sake, but rather to ensure that
Debian distributes only Free software.  I have never seen a Free
license which required upstream distribution.  I don't ever expect to
see one, because I don't think they can exist.  That is, I think *any*
proposed distribution-required license will either turn out to not
require distribution after all, or will turn out to be non-free for
clear reasons.

For example, the QPL is non-free because I can't distribute to the
initial author under the same copyleft he used to distribute to me.
It fails DFSG 3.  It is also non-free because it compels me to retain
access to anything I link to the licensed work forever, if I ever
distribute it, thus imposing a fee on distribution and violating DFSG
1.

> 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.

I think that's a different but worthy discussion.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu