Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG: QPL 6c argumentation.
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 10:22:51AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > 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
>
> Only if 6a applies; 6a only applies when someone who has a binary
> requests source, which is not the case for your distribution to the
> initial developer.
Yes, but only 6a claims that said distribution has to be without charge. How
do you justify that the distribution per 6c has to be without charge in the
first place ? And you have to consider that for it to be considered a royalty
or fee. But then, i am no native english speaker, so i would appreciate a
english analysis of the 6c language.
> > 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 :
>
> I would tend to agree. It makes no sense for it to be possible to
> charge upstream an exorbitant fee to get the software. I don't think
> "you must supply one" implies that you may charge for it.
Yeah, but why doesn't it say "you must give away one for free" ? An word
analysis of the word "supply would be welcome 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.
>
> I think the intent behind it is reasonable, but it just goes too far.
Could you argument this ? And you say it goes to far, but where would the
transition between acceptable and unacceptable be ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: