Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: QPL 6c argumentation.
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 05:29:29PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>:
>
> > | c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the
> > | initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items,
> > | then you must supply one.
>
> > The upstream author can request a copy of the items, if they are distributed,
> > but not openly distributed (in which case he just needs to get the public
> > version). One could argue again that this would mean a breach of the DFSG #1,
> > since the right of the author to those software would be considered a fee or
> > royalty, but the same argumentation as above makes me reject that.
>
> I assume "the same argumentation as above" refers to your argument
> about it not costing anything which you used in the 3b thread.
Yes.
> I disagree about it not costing anything. Even if you are entitled to
> charge for the cost of data transfer there is still the cost of
> administration. The cost of administration is probably not much, but
> in many cases it's more than the cost of sending a postcard, and
> Debian has, I think, always regarded as non-free a licence that
> requires you to send a postcard to the author. Debian has also
> regarded petting a cat as a restriction or cost, so I think it would
> be a big break with tradition to accept 6c as an allowable
> restriction.
>
> In some cases the administration might cost quite a lot, if you need
> legal approval or if you're on a Deser... sorry, I won't mention that
> possibility!
Err, in general, the cost involved is sending an email. All the rest can be
added to data transfer.
> > Furthermore, the distribution of these items is governed by the QPL 6a and 6b,
>
> It's not clear to me that 6c is governed by 6a. I would guess it
> probably isn't, but it's not worth arguing, because the cost of
> administration is probably a bigger burden anyway.
So, if it is not governed by QPL 6, under which clause is it covered ? I would
even go further, and say that provided the QPL licence, you have no right to
distribute said items under conditions which don't agree with QPL 6, including
QPL 6a, 6b and 6c. This is what is said in the last sentence of the QPL 6
header : " These items, when distributed, are subject to the following
requirements:". Or do you claim that distribution to the upstream author is
not an act of distribution ?
> So I see two chances of getting 6c past debian-legal:
>
> (1) Claim that the cost of administration is negligible. I think this
> goes against tradition.
Could you define more precisely what is meant by cost of administration ? I
think i am going this way, but it is unclear to me under what assumption you
can separate these so called administrative costs from the costs of data
transfer. It seems to me to be an artificial distinction. And notice that
nothing in QPL 6 is stopping you from charging the upstream author for the
binary.
> (2) Claim that the developer can avoid 6c altogether by making sure
> the items are available to the general public. Unfortunately, there's
> no precedent that I know of for Debian regarding as free a requirement
> to make software available to the general public when it is
> distributed, so you'd have to try and build a consensus for that
> rather than argue legalistically.
Sure. but i don't want to go this way, i believe the first option you
mentioned is more appropriate.
> In either case you'd still have to cope with the privacy problem,
Privacy problem ? Could you clearly define that. If the author is able to make
a request to you, your privacy is already lost anyway. This is if i understand
this argument right.
> which you don't seem to have mentioned in your summary. It's not (in
> my opinion) implied by the DFSG, but there seems to be quite a lot of
> support for the idea that a free software licence should permit
> private distribution within a group.
Ok, well, for me privacy has to do with anonymousness and crypted
communication, maybe your word is badly chosen.
Still, if it is really a private distribution, the upstream author will not
know of it, and thus cannot make a request.
Anyway, i doubt the privacy issue is worth mentioning, as you said, it is not
covered by the DFSG right now, and would need a new guideline to be added, i
think. And finally, what do the free software gain by mandating the
possibility of private distribution ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: