Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:13:31PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:02:21PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > 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.
>
> What procedures do you have in place in France to ensure that ultimately
> unsuccessful lawsuits don't get started?
>
> > > > 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 ?
>
> DFSG #14: Just because the Debian maintainer doesn't think a non-free term
> will be exercised, doesn't make the non-free term magically disappear. Nor
> does wandering into debian-legal, sticking his fingers in his ears, and
> shouting "laa laa laa! I can't hear you! Your arguments are bogus!" make
> the non-free term go away, either.
Please respond in a reasonable non-bullshit way to the new thread i have
started, and play the subthread rules, which i was encouraged to adopt to make
the matter more concise.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: