Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue

[Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> writes:
>> So we declare it non-free despite the fact that it makes no difference 
>> to our users? Does this not sound a little ridiculous?
>
>I just explained to you how it makes a difference, as did several
>others.  The patent situation is unavoidable and, ideally, temporary.
>The termination clause situation is avoidable.  Also, it imposes a
>burden on our users -- each user now needs to check
>/usr/share/doc/*/copyright for termination clauses, then check to make
>sure his license to each of those products has not been terminated.

If the licensee is not made aware of the termination of the license, is
this legally enforcable? A license that attempted to cover use would be
non-free in any case, and further redistribution requires the reading of
the copyright notices in any case.

>> The Debian social contract states:
>>
>> "We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free"
>> in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software Guidelines". We
>> promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free
>> according to these guidelines."
>>
>> If you can't relate these tests to the guidelines, they are effectively 
>> guidelines themselves. If they're guidelines, then they should be in the 
>> DFSG. There's a defined process for changing the DFSG - you propose a GR 
>> and you convince the developers to vote for it. Effectively extending 
>> the DFSG without developer agreement is not acceptable behaviour.
>
>The DFSG would need amendment to *allow* some sorts of software -- to
>declare things free which would otherwise be obviously non-free.  They
>don't need to change in order to forbid something already clearly
>non-free.

How does that follow from the social contract? "We provide the
guidelines we use to determine if a work is "free" in the document
entitled 'The Debian Free Software Guidelines'" quite clearly states
that the DFSG is what is used to determine whether something is free.
Tests that clarify various provisions of the DFSG are fine. Tests that
have no basis whatsoever in the DFSG have no standing. If you disagree
with that, then go through the proper procedure to amend the social
contract.

>Now, it's clear to me that the QPL, with its requirements for
>communication with the initial author, its choice-of-venue clause, its
>asymmetry and provision for the initial author to take others changes
>and sell them as his proprietary works, and its eternal burden of
>managing a log of all changes ever made to QPL'd software is non-free.
>
>It appears clear to you that it is free, despite the fact that it
>imposes costs equal to the worth of the modifications on distribution
>of modification, infinite cost (epsilon storage cost * O(n) tracking
>cost * infinite time) on modification, and a cost on acceptance
>(travel at the author's whim to Norway, France, or wherever some
>mutant version of the QPL sends you).

So far there have been two main forms of argument against the QPL - ones
which aren't founded on the DFSG, and ones which would render the GPL
non-free as well. I find these unconvincing. Find some arguments that
don't fall into these catagories (and you're going to have to do more
than just handwave madly to convince me about the "fee" one) and I'll
listen. Until then, I don't think it's really worth discussing things
much further.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org