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

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

On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:48:04AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> [Replying to this subthread but quoting a message from another
> subthread, since this is a 6c argument, and I don't want to break the
> subthread rules.]
> 
> In Message-ID <[🔎] 20040723220245.GB21486@pegasos>, Sven Luther wrote:
> > If a licence says each time you use the software you have to write a 
> > postcard to a sick child, or only do it one time when you first get 
> > hold of it, this is a cost or fee or whatever that you have to pay 
> > when you install the software, and you can't legally work around it.
> 
> OK.  First of all, I assume this would also apply if the postcard must
> be sent to the upstream author, and if sending the postcard was required
> for distribution, rather than use; would you agree?  Furthermore, if
> sending the postcard was not required automatically, but only if the
> author asks for one, this would still apply, right?
> 
> If so, then how is "if you distribute a work that links to mine, you
> must send me a postcard" a fee, but "if your work links to mine, you
> must send me your work" not a fee?

In the cost involved. If you send a postcard, it is costing something to you,
even if it is a symbolic cost, and thus does constitute a fee (and we are
against it because it can be an inconvenience in the first place, not because
of the symbolic cost).

Now, if i have to send you my work upon request, first i can charge for the
cost of the source distribution, as per 6a. Second, and this is still a
dubious interpretation i would like clarification about from Trolltech,
there is nothing saying i have to send upstream the binary for free. In this
interpretation, clause 6c is merely saying that i have no right to deny a sale
of the linked software to upstream.

I think this is a doubtfull interpretation, since nothing is said of the
price, and setting a really high price would void the possibility of upstream
to get the software. The annotation also doesn't clarify it here : 

   This is to avoid problems with companies that try to hide the source. If we
   get to know about it we want to be able to get hold of the code even if we
   are not users. In this way, if somebody tries to cheat and we get to know
   we can release the code to the public.
 
So, this may be a good point to go to my upstream and argue for the dropping
of 6c altogether, altough i personally feel it is a nice touch, and would be a
good thing for the furtherance of free software.

Friendly,

Sven Luther