Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:00:22AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 02:22:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:08:14PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:54:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > > Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Anyway, notice that QPL 6 doesn't speak about modification, but work which
> > > > link to a QPLed library. Not exactly the same thing.
> > >
> > > Which is even worse, because the QPL is then compelling distribution of
> > > essentially unrelated items. If dynamic linking doesn't produce a
> > > derivative work, the QPL is overstretching it's bounds by quite a bit.
> >
> > And you ignored me arguing repeteadly that a derived work and a modified work
> > are not the same thing, right ? Again this speaks highly of your capacity to
> > follow up here and make informed arguments.
>
> Go the ad hominem. Yeah. Not to mention the fact that I never argued that
> a modified work is not a derived work. Quote me saying that. Go on. Go
> nuts.
But you are arguing that a derived work is necesarily a modified work, even
despite the repeated evidence that the QPL author think it is not.
> > > > Well, sure, but what is your moral ground for refusing the same modifications
> > > > to upstream ?
> > >
> > > What's your moral ground for asserting that upstream has a right to my
> > > modifications?
> >
> > What is your moral ground that he has not ? Elemental courtesy and decency
> > sure would fall into play here.
>
> They're not his modifications. What is your moral ground that he has?
Elemental courtesy. You make use of what the upstream author freely gave to
you, and he request you extend the same courtesy in return to him. What moral
ground have you on refusing him ?
And if you dispute the "freely" part, you can only do so once you have proven
that the QPL is non-free. And even then, what moral ground do you have to give
your stuff back to upstream under the same conditions that he has (Thus QPLing
your changes).
> > > > Well, i see disenting voices in that conversation, and the consensus you
> > > > mention seems to be one of assertion, as it is quite lacking in analysis and
> > > > real arguments, don't you think.
> > >
> > > Yes, I do see that quite a bit on one side of the discussion.
> >
> > Thanks, again you can only reject those accusation by counter attacking.
>
> Yes, I do see that quite a bit on one side of the discussion.
So, stop it, and participate with an open mind to the clear new thread i have
started about this.
> > > > You don't give a free blank check here, you only give the right for the code
> > > > to be integrated back in the original software, and in the case of dual
> > > > licencing of said software, like in both the ocaml and Qt case, you give the
> > > > right to have the _SAME_ software also relicenced under the other licence,
> > > > thus allowing upstream to not have to handle a split patch. In no way does
> > >
> > > Upstream doesn't have to handle a split tree, they just don't integrate
> > > anything they haven't got their permission grant or copyright assignment
> > > for.
> >
> > Ok. But they can't reuse the modification then, and all the free software
> > community looses then.
>
> Why can't they reuse the modification? They either have the copyright (by
Because they are forced to do tree splitting and shoulder the burden of split
tree maintenance, which they don't want to.
> assignment) and can therefore do whatever they want, or they have the same
> blanket permission they have with the QPL, but this time they haven't
> coerced it. Either way they can incorporate the change into anything they
> like, free, non-free, or otherwise.
So, what is the problem ? 3b is just a way for upstream to make sure they can
reuse the modifications made by third party in their dual licenced tree,
without having to shoulder the burden of the additional legal hops to do it
so. And if you have one time contributed to the FSF, you will see that this
burden is quite high, including at least three international letters, and some
stuff about your employer.
> > > For someone who is very quick to accuse others of not reading the rest of
> > > the thread, you're *incredibly* good at forgetting what people have
> > > previously told you.
> >
> > Given the amount of bullshit i have been told, well, one little minor lapse
> > can be acceptable, and at least i accept my error, while others just don't.
>
> One minor lapse. Does anyone else get the same benefit?
Well, sure, but repeated nonsense doesn't get it. And i don't think i have
switched into rude mode over the first ofense, but after the third or fifth
one. If not, i apologize for it, and please let's start a clean discussion in
the new thread, as much me as the rest of the debian-legal contributors.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: