Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: QPL 6c argumentation.
Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>:
> > 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.
Some things that could come under administration and might not be
chargeable to the initial developer:
1. Time spent in forwarding the request to the appropriate person and
replying to it.
2. Ensuring copies of the software are kept.
3. Getting legal approval for each release to the initial developer.
4. Insurance for the consequences of accidentally releasing
confidential material.
It wouldn't surprise me if many companies would prefer to send all the
software upstream at the same as releasing it to avoid the risk of
dealing with requests later. From the company's point of view the
situation is then very similar to the situation of being compelled to
make the software available to the general public.
> > 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.
As I explained earlier, it might be public knowledge (because of press
releases and job adverts) that you are modifying compiler X to exploit
the new CPU architecture that you are developing and that you are
distributing a prototype of the compiler to partners. However, you
don't want to publicly release the code itself because the code would
reveal details of the CPU architecture that you do not want the world
to know about yet.
> Still, if it is really a private distribution, the upstream author will not
> know of it, and thus cannot make a request.
As I said: the existence of the distribution is public knowledge, but
details contained in the code are confidential.
> 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 ?
Obviously we can't mandate it; we can just encourage it by Debian
disapproving of licences that don't allow private distribution.
Gain for Debian: greater confidence that people won't be
inconvenienced by the licences that apply to stuff in main.
Gain for free software: more people using it.
Loss for Debian: less stuff in main.
Loss for free software: some stuff not being released to the public,
or not being released so early.
It's anyone's guess whether the gains or the losses are bigger.
Anyway, there's a third chance of getting 6c past debian-legal, which
someone brought up in a different thread and which might be the
strongest yet:
(3) Claim that the rights granted in section 3 of the QPL are
sufficient to make the software free so there is no need to even look
at section 6.
Reply to: