Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG : QPL 3b argumentation.

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

On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 06:58:28PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> 
> > On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 02:38:18PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> >> 
> >> > On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:22:04PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> >> The law already makes it illegal to tamper with copyright notices; a
> >> >> license doesn't need to say that in order to make it wrong to do so.
> >> >> Perhaps it could just be left out?
> >> >
> >> > Given that lawyer wrote this licence, why did they add it. And in any case,
> >> > what harm is there to do so ?
> >> 
> >> I don't know why they added it.  Maybe you could ask them.  The usual
> >> reason is to make such a change not merely a crime, but also copyright
> >> infringement, so as to extract punitive damages as well.
> >> 
> >> But as a side effect, it also makes a bunch of good things violate the
> >> license -- like translating "Copyright (c) 2004 Bob Smith" to whatever
> >> language is appropriate.
> >
> > Notice this other wording for basically the same thing : 
> >
> >   1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
> >   source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
> >   conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
> >   copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
> >   notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
> >   and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
> >   along with the Program.
> 
> That's very different; that allows me to write a new and different
> copyright notice, so long as it's complete and accurate, and also
> appropriate.
> 
> > It may be not exactly the same wording, but the intent is clearly the same. I
> > know that ocaml upstream chose the QPL in part because it was less verbose and
> > easier to understand that other licences out there. Sure, you may loose some
> > details in this simplicity, but the intent is clear.
> 
> And yet we don't argue much about the GPL, MIT/X11, or other Free
> licenses, and there has been well over a week and hundreds of messages
> on the QPL.  If the idea is that it's easier to understand, they
> really screwed up.

Because you don'ty dare give those well known the kind of abuse you give the
QPL, or half of what is in debian, including X, the kernel, the toolchain,
etc, would be thrown out of debian :).

> > Also, consider the annotation :
> >
> >   This doesn't really need to be stated, since to do so would be fraudulent.
> >
> > Do we really need to continue arguing about this close ? 
> 
> Yes -- the annotation is incorrect.  This is much more restrictive
> than the law requires.  There are many honest activities which break
> this clause.

Ok, propose an alternate concise writing of this, please ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther