[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: QPL 6c argumentation.



Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>:

> > 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.
> 
> Why ? You could ask upstream not to release it.

According to 6b you have to give them permission to release it.

> And again, if you don't make
> public announcement, upstream has no way to know about said software, and if
> he does, you have a leak somewhere.

Perhaps in some cases you could keep the matter secret, but it's an
additional inconvenience, to put it mildly.

> Again, do we really want to care about such far fetched cases ? 

I don't think the case I invented is particularly far-fetched,
certainly not by debian-legal standards.

> So, if you distribute it to partners, based on the work done by the upstream
> author, you can as well distribute it to the upstream authors. And if you
> don't like it, don't modify its software. Nowhere in the DFSG does it say that
> you have a right to make modifications not widely available. There is enough
> licences out there which allow this kind of thing. And in the ocaml case, if
> you really like to do this, you become an Ocaml consortium member, and get the
> ocaml compiler suite under another licence which is less restrictive.

Yes, you always have the right not to use the software. That hardly
makes it free. Are there other licences in Debian main that have this
"privacy problem" (this privacy issue that you consider not to be a
problem)?

> > 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.
> 
> No, since they apply to two different things. QPL 3 and 4 is for modifications
> of the original software, while QPL 6 is for applications linking with the
> software.

I'm surprised to see you dismiss so readily what is potentially your
strongest argument, but perhaps it's a trick to make me argue your
case for you: Where in the DFSG does it say that a licence must give
special additional permission for applications linking with the
software? Isn't the right to distribute modified versions as source
and binary enough, and doesn't QPL 3 and 4 grant those rights?



Reply to: