Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 06:37:29PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> luther@debian.org wrote:
> > Still, in this matter we need to find a balance between the right of the
> > developer (who don't wish people to use the software in disrespect of the
> > licence) and the wish of users who want to do modifications, and as long as
> > they respect the licence, should not be furthermore molested.
> >
> > The fear of harassment only comes for someone who is willingly breaking the
> > licence, and seriously, do we want to encourage those ?
>
> Or anyone who can be accused of breaking the license. And in order to
> show you aren't, you would need to show up in the licensor's jurisdiction.
Well, this may work in the US, where trigger happy legal action is comon
place, as shown by the RIAA-sues-the world news we commonly get.
> > And finally, i know the upstream authors personnally, and i also understand
> > their situation enough to know that they won't engage in any such harrasment,
> > even if it was possible.
>
> I can understand that. However, we cannot say "the QPL is Free because
> the non-Free clauses will not be executed by one particular user of the
> QPL". Furthermore, if upstream has no intention of engaging in such
> harrassment, perhaps they could be persuaded to waive the clause that
> gives them the ability to do so. (Yes, I do understand that upstream
> does not like to deal with licensing issues.)
And where exactly does the DFSG make this non-free ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: