Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: Choice of venue argumentation.

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:55:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:42:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Step 1) SCO buys (or wins in a lawsuit) the copyright to some QPL'ed
> code we're distributing.  (AIUI, even in Europe, copyrights can be
> bought, sold, or contracted; as distinct from moral rights, which cannot
> be.)

Well, SCO claimed the GPL was illegal, and threatens to sue everyone about the
linux code. Do we remove the linux code base from debian/main because of it ? 

> Step 2) SCO uses this additional legal leverage to initiate wrongful
> lawsuits against people who are distributing the QPLed code.

Like they do for GPLed code. Again is the GPL non-free because of it ?

> > And then, do you honestly believe such a case would happen, and that it is
> > common enough for us to worry about it.
> 
> How many users must be bankrupted by lawsuits before you consider it
> "common enough" to worry about?

One. I doubt there is such a one over the QPL, and i doubt there will be one
in the future.

> > > 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.
> 
> You are hiding behind your belief in the infinite goodness of the
> upstream authors.  Our goal here is to protect our users, and the way to
> do that is to assume the *worst* about the people they're exchanging
> code with, not the best.

Sure. Then no code would be free, and debian would collapse in itself.

> If I hire someone to provide security for my home, and he surveys it,
> looks at the open windows, looks at the door with no lock on it, and
> tells me "Your home is secure, most people in the world are good and
> won't try to rob you", should I be content with this?

And ? Are we claiming "you are secure from bullshit lawsuits if you use all
software in debian" ? How can you be secure from the actions of a madman ?
There is no guarantee for this, so debian should stop distributing any
software in fear of it.

> > 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 ? 
> 
> The GPL warranty disclaimer is *void* in your country.  That is not the

So, i use the brand new debian installer, and autopartkit eats my harddisk (or
the default erase all data partman option). I then go and sue debian over it,
the waranty and non-damage clause being void, i win the lawsuit. Thus
debian-installer is non-free, and we have to remove it.

> same thing as it being *illegal* in your country.  Please explain the
> basis of the lawsuit you're bringing against Debian in this hypothetical
> case.  It is most likely a lawsuit that no change to the license could
> protect us against without becoming non-free, and therefore out of scope
> for questions of freeness.

Same applies for legal harrasment and bullshit lawsuits. 

Friendly,

Sven Luther