Re: QPL non-DFSG compliance? What future for OCaml in Debian?
Sven Luther writes:
>> You assume that upstream is less likely to abuse the license or courts
>
> Well, in this particular case, knowing the upstream author and the french
> judicial system, i know that he is less likely to do so. My own guess is that
> it would never go beyond a few email exchange, or maybe a formal letter.
See the "Tentacles of Evil" test for why this does not let us ignore
non-free license clauses.
> Unless the violating side would be a big corporation and deliberatedly
> violated the licence. And since both microsoft and sun would have interest in
> the ocaml code base and technology, this later may be understandable.
> I don't know about other authors though, but i have serious doubts of anyone
> being able to engage into unfounded harassment tactics without a corrupt judge
> to stand by its side, and i do believe that this is much more likely to happen
> in the US and in other unlawfull countries than in the french court chosen
> here.
Both Microsoft and Sun do business in France, right? I'm going to
take a wild guess and say they have offices somewhere convenient to be
sued -- perhaps even in the district of the French court specified
now. The bigger and more multi-national a company is, the more likely
they can be conveniently sued. That also correlates well with the
likely losses if they "steal" free software (i.e. they violate the
license).
>> than a user (or perhaps that the expected damage due to upstream abuse
>> is less). It is not clear to me that this is the case. Do we really
>
> Yeah, well the opposite is not clear to me also, and i happen to know the
> people involved personally, so i am able to make that judgement call.
> Furthermore, it is my package, and i belive i am the person responsible for
> making said judgement call, since i would be the first sued in case of
> problems, would i not ?
Ask RedHat whether they would be the first sued. See below.
>> gain by making it more difficult for users to defend their permitted
>> use of the software, given that we allow upstream to specify which
>> laws should be used?
>
> Well, cite me one example of such harassment ? Do we really want to go rigid
> over this while it is only pure blind speculation and fear ? And in this case,
> is our fear for our user any more acceptable than upstream's fear to get its
> licence violated, or even to get sued over it in his own right ?
Is SCO "blind speculation?" How much has been spent by IBM, Daimler
Chrystler, and AutoZone to defend against those lawsuits? How does
that compare to how much has been spent on GPL enforcement in all
time?
Can you cite examples where some GPL violator got away with it because
the author could not sue? There are well-known cases where the author
sued over GPL infringement and got his way, even when the violator was
somewhere else. There are many more cases where the author did not
have to go to court -- polite letters, or PR campaigns by the free
software community, were enough to get compliance.
Michael Poole
Reply to: