Re: QPL non-DFSG compliance? What future for OCaml in Debian?
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:00:18PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-19 16:33:34 +0100 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
> >> 1) point 6c of the QPL fails the chinese dissident or desert
> >>island tests.
> >> Apart from the the dubious justification of those tests (i would
> >>much have
> >> prefered particular DFSG points), i believe that the licence sets
> >>implicitly
> >> the cost of data transfer to the person requiring the sources.
> >>[...]
>
> I am still contemplating whether the actual source transfer is a fee
> in itself. There have been some interesting replies to that idea.
Please let's not let our common-sense go away, and consider the implications
if you go that way. Also, notice that many licences, and even the DFSG if i am
not wrong, say no fee except those involved in source transfer, so you can
hardly argue that the source tranfser is a fee.
That said, i doubt we really want to travel this way, and make requirement for
modificator to give back the changes to the community non-free. Notice also
that the DFSG mentions giving back source in order to make it available to the
original software, or something such.
> >> 2) the court of venue issue. All lwasuits must be filled at
> >>Versailles.
> >>
> >> Well, i am no lawyer, but i hardly find this non-free [...]
>
> Why is it free? Why should the licensor be allowed to make any
> licensee to represent themselves in France? Much of your argument
> seems to be about choice of law rather than choice of venue. I think
> most people accept choice of law.
I don't care, and more to it, i doubt upstream cares enough to get obscure
lawyer talk cited to him. I have no real idea what a choice of law and a
choice of court is, well, i suppose i have some idea, but nothing firm.
How is the court chosen if there is no court of venue clause ? It is the
persecutor who choses it, at least that is my impression. So, this would only
be a problem for modifier suing (or counter suing) the upstream author, right ?
And again, i have much more faith in a french judge rejecting silly claims
from the outstart, than the same from an US judge, so having the licence
setting any legal action in a reasonable legal country is rather a good point.
> >>That said, i made those objections, and nobody cared to CC me their
> >>reply,
> >>if they did reply.
>
> I have been away. I find your impatience as irritating as your
> continual unprovoked rudeness and paranoia.
Well, the bunch of please remove your package from main ASAP bugreports Brian filled
may excuse me somehow, don't you think ?
Also, consider that i was unvoluntary forced into a many-hundred thread on
debian-legal and loose time i could have used much better fixing bugs and
working on getting sarge release ready.
> For example, you must surely know why grep won't give a true list of
> affected packages, if you have given it any real thought. If you still
> don't get it, go look at the policy manual. (This is not my preferred
> style. It is an example of what Sven Luther keeps doing.)
Err, no, i don't see that. the policy says that the copyright file should
include the licence of the package, either directly, as in the case of the
QPL, or indirectly, as in the case of the GPL and co. Then you can easily get
all dependent packages and you have a list of affected packages.
And even if one or the other slip through, well, they cannot be surprised if
they don't fill the copyright file correctly.
Also, it seems Brian had no trouble finding a bunch of QPLed files, and i
sincerely doubt he is so much more bright than you, isn't it ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: