Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
Josh Triplett writes:
>
>Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> *sigh* So much for debate. We've had this raised and debunked several
>> times. WHY does a stupid local law make a license non-free? If
>> somebody passes a law that prohibits distribution of source code
>> without fee, would you consider the GPL to be non-free at that point?
>> If the US is backward enough to attempt to restrict exports of
>> software to certain states, that's NOT a problem in the licenses so
>> affected. Or are we trying to make a US-centric set of DFSG now?
>
>To my knowledge no such laws regarding distribution of source code
>without fee exist anywhere in the world, so no such problem exists; the
>same can be said of most contrived examples, like "No licenses with
>three-letter acronyms are acceptable" :).
>
>Export laws already exist in many countries, so they are a real issue,
>and not just a hypothetical one. Furthermore, it would normally be
>quite possible for the distributor to distribute (source and binary) to
>locations they can distribute to, except that the "send sources
>upstream" clause forces them to distribute to a particular third party,
>who may be in any arbitrary location when they make the request.
>
>To put it another way, it's a specific concrete example of the Dissident
>test. :)
To name another contrived example, yes. Afghanistan was home to laws
banning computers and some technology altogether IIRC. Would you allow
those laws to dictate that software licenses are not free?
>However, if many people really do not think this is a good example, I
>won't include it. I am trying to summarize general debian-legal
>opinion, not just my own opinion. :)
Fine, I appreciate that. I'm just beginning to think that summarising
debian-legal opinion is fruitless...
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
Into the distance, a ribbon of black
Stretched to the point of no turning back
Reply to: