Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: Choice of venue argumentation.
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:21:04PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:29:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > But again, the DFSG makes no provision whatsoever for this kind of things.
>
> > > So in general, you believe it's ok to inflict all kinds of risks on
> > > users who exercise their rights on software in main, so long as the DFSG
> > > doesn't explicitly prohibit them?
>
> > No, but these are hypothetical risks which i have some doubts will happen.
> > Like they say here, 0-risk is impossible to obtain, there will always be some
> > risk. Still the DFSG are our guidelines for what we consider free, if lawsutis
> > are part of it, we need to add a new DFSG entry about it, and go through the
> > voting and 3:1 majority requirement and everything.
>
> > Or clearly add a note to the DFSG that we feel free to add any random
> > additional constraint at our whim.
>
> > > Forget these inane arguments about what the DFSG does or doesn't
> > > prohibit; why would we WANT to expose our users to licenses like this?
>
> > Why not ? And do you consider seriously that the risk involved is a real one ?
> > Or just empty speculation ?
>
> Is the risk of being sued for including small amounts of GPL code in
> your binary-only application a real risk?
>
> What's the difference between a "real" risk and a "hypothetical" risk,
> until someone actually gets sued?
Well can you propose a real example of what we are considering here ? An
example for which upstream sues an random user over the QPL. Also such a case
were we would honestly stand on the users said, and not say, he violated the
licence, he deserves what he gets.
And then, do you honestly believe such a case would happen, and that it is
common enough for us to worry about it.
> The bright line that most followers of debian-legal appear to conform to
> is "the licenses say that you can exercise the freedoms listed in the DFSG".
Ok, but the choice of venue issues stops none of those freedoms.
> This is not zero-risk, because nothing in life is zero-risk; the
> copyright holder could be acting in bad faith, or you could be sued by a
> third party for patent infringement, or even for copyright infringement.
> The point is that we don't want our users to be exposed to risks *by the
> license*.
So you are hiding behind hypothetical harrasing upstream authors, over a
clause which may or may not be binding.
What if i sue debian because the GPL non-warranty close is illegal in my
country ? As it seems to be the case in some european countries. Would that
make the GPL non-free or dangerous for us to distribute ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: