Re: QPL clause 6 irrelevant?
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:14:29PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > Greetings, > > I've noticed an older discussion about the QPL > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00626.html > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00519.html > > which argues that clause 6 gives additional permissions (like clause > 3b and 3c of the GPL), with clauses 3 and 4 of the QPL being the > DFSG-free path. In that case, clause 6 is irrelevant. I brought this > up in June It seems that QPL#3 is intended to apply to modifications of the source, and QPL#6 is intended to apply to programs that link against QPL works. It seems to say "if you distribute your own program that links against my QPL'd library, you have to give me a copy of your program on demand". It feels like I'm misreading the license, but I can't figure out how. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: More questions about the QPL for compilers and other things
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> I see compilers -- and not just LISP compilers -- all the time, which >> claim to control how their output may be used. The intel compiler, >> for example, has an expensive license if you wish to build products >> for commercial sale. Metrowerks Codewarrior used to be under a >> similar license; I assume it still is. > > If that's done by means of a contract then it's not relevant to the > question of whether there is copyrightable material in the compiler > output. A contract can make all sorts of restrictions that have > nothing to do with copyright law. These are/were free downloads, protected by pre-UCITA clickthrough licenses at most, and some with redistribution permitted. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 05:13:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> The GPL discriminates against a slightly smaller set of
> >> dissidents. The GPL discriminates against people on desert islands
> >> who have a binary CD but not a source one.
> >
> >If worst comes to worst, we can use DFSG 10 to avoid this issue, and
> >use it to define the line where the dissident tests can no longer be
> >applied.
I don't think that's an issue; that's not against the spirit of the desert
island test. After all, that would be just as much of a problem if we
called it the "hungry programmer test"--it "discriminates" against hungry
programmers who don't have source, as well as anyone else who has binaries
and no source. The island doesn't enter into it.
The desert island test is meant as a sanity check for the set of restrictions
like "in order to {modify, distribute} this work, you must make contact with
this and that third party". I think it's much better thought of as a test
for DFSG#1 and #3 than #6 and #7.
> Of course, this mostly just turns the argument into one about
> weightings. Since these are mostly determined by personal opinion, it
> suggests that there isn't a correct place to draw the line. The only
> real suggestion I have is wider discussion in an attempt to gain a
> better understanding of how different people view the issue.
That's exactly the purpose of many of the discussions on d-legal. I'm not
sure what you think should change. Do you think the QPL discussion would be
more productive if crossposted to d-devel? (I think it would just annoy the
people who have chosen not to participate.)
--
Glenn Maynard
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:34:33PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Would you might clarifying what that grounding is (or pointing me at a > particular message that does so)? I'm currently drafting the second > draft of the QPL summary, and that's one of the few things I'm still > working on: a well-grounded justification from the actual text of the > DFSG. The "fee" angle seems nebulous, and hard to justify; I > more-or-less agree with it, but I need a clear way to justify why it is > only a "royalty or other fee" if it is "paid" to the upstream developer, > and not if it is "paid" to someone you are already distributing the > software to. "The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software ..." I believe "may not restrict" is the operative phrase; this is a restriction. Clearly, this is a case where judgement needs to be applied; taken to the extreme, it would render almost all licenses non-free. I know that some people will want to argue that any such judgement must follow directly and literally from the DFSG; but I think that's equivalent to arguing that the DFSG is to be interpreted as a set of laws rather than guidelines. (I'd be curious how these people would justify "pet a cat when you distribute" being non-free. I really do have trouble calling "petting a cat" a fee, but it's certainly a restriction.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Web application licenses [was Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report]
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:10:24PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > If you make the software or a work based on the software available for > direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software > to that party, you must either: > > a) Distribute the complete corresponding machine-readable source code > publically under this license, or > b) Make the source code available to that party, under the all the same > conditions you would need to meet in GPL section 3 if you were > distributing a binary to that party. Consider the general case: if my entire system was under this license, then my small web page (serving a few small files at my 30k/sec) would require me to put the source to Apache, glibc, openssl, and the other dependencies (and possibly the kernel, depending where you draw the line). If I was on a modem doing the same thing--which many people do--then even making only the Apache source available to anyone who has access to the page (at 5k/sec) is a huge cost. (Each person downloading would tie up the line for a long time.) The costs of sending source code are generally comparable to the costs of sending binaries; but the costs of sending source are, in many cases, orders of magnitude greater than the costs of "making it available for use". I seem to recall other, more specific cases showing related problems (where the cost transmitting on some media was on the order of pennies per sentence), but I can't recall them, or which discussion it came up in. Anyone remember? -- Glenn Maynard
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > Well, you claimed there was a consensus, while there is clearly no such > > thing. > > Thus it is a lie intended to get the maintainer to take the course of action > > you want through FUD, or at best a misinformed claim you should apologize > > for. (Who could possibly argue with such reasoning?) > The consensus on debian-legal seems to be strongly against the QPL. I suspect Sven thinks--or hopes we'll believe--that one person disagreeing with consensus two hundred times is roughly equivalent to the reverse. > > And i hope you don't tell your AM that you are code hoarding, i doubt he > > will > > appreciate. Guilt by association--the bottom of the argumentation barrel ... -- Glenn Maynard
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:34:33PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>So, have you found something non-free that cannot be justified by the > >>DFSG? Would you be willing wo work on wording for a modification to > >>the DFSG? If you need sponsors I would be happy to help. > > I don't think that the QPL requires any changes to the DFSG to be > > clearly non-free. That is, the choice-of-venue clause and the full > > publication of any distributed change both have clear grounding in the > > DFSG. > Would you might clarifying what that grounding is (or pointing me at a > particular message that does so)? I'm currently drafting the second > draft of the QPL summary, and that's one of the few things I'm still > working on: a well-grounded justification from the actual text of the > DFSG. Choice-of-venue is discriminatory against large classes of people, those who live far away and don't have the means to contest a suit over long distances. If, as Sven argues, this is actually a null clause under French law, then it's a license blemish rather than a DFSG problem, and should be removed for clarity. > The "fee" angle seems nebulous, and hard to justify; I more-or-less > agree with it, but I need a clear way to justify why it is only a > "royalty or other fee" if it is "paid" to the upstream developer, and > not if it is "paid" to someone you are already distributing the > software to. Do you disagree with the definition I've advanced in earlier messages, that a fee is something given in *exchange* for a license? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:14:44PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > > I disagree. This is not relevant to the freedom of the license, because > > it's an additional restriction imposed by a *third party* (in this case, > > a government), and not something that can be fixed by additional > > permission grants from the licensor. > > Free software licensing presupposes that the copyright holder has the > > ability to grant you certain freedoms over the code. When this is not > > the case due to outside forces (e.g., patent holders or averse > > governments), we should not view this as a flaw in the license if this > > license gives us the *author's* permission to exercise those freedoms > > with the code. > If I can't modify and distribute the software, how can you call the > software free? If you live in a regime such as this, *you* are not free. This is not the software's fault. > This is not like patents or other usual suspects (e.g. govt > regulations on crypto), which depend on the contents of the software. > Rather it flows directly from the license and its interaction with the > law. The author can make the software free by using a BSD license. But in such a case, you can only be free from compelled sharing with the government by exercising your freedom to withhold source code from your neighbors. You can't build a community that way, so I don't think this is a useful definition of freedom. Freedom to distribute binaries is useful, but is secondary to the freedom to share source code. > As another example, what if there were a jurisdiction where recipients > automatically receive the right to modify and distribute unless > otherwise explicitly specified. Then a simple "Copyright (C) 2000 > Steve Langasek" would be free. The difference between this and the prior example is that in the first case, the *government* has additional rights over the software, whereas in the second case, it is the *author* who has lesser rights over (control of) the software. Yes, in this hypothetical jurisdiction, a mere copyright statement would be free; but we are concerned about freedom at the international level, so we need to take a "least common denominator" look at the rights of copyright holders. If we ever get to the point where this hypothetical jurisdiction *is* the least common denominator, then we can give ourselves all a pat on the back and disband the debian-legal mailing list (or at least not be worried over licenses anymore). -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Still, in this matter we need to find a balance between the right of the > developer (who don't wish people to use the software in disrespect of the > licence) and the wish of users who want to do modifications, and as long as > they respect the licence, should not be furthermore molested. > > The fear of harassment only comes for someone who is willingly breaking the > licence, and seriously, do we want to encourage those ? Or anyone who can be accused of breaking the license. And in order to show you aren't, you would need to show up in the licensor's jurisdiction. > And finally, i know the upstream authors personnally, and i also understand > their situation enough to know that they won't engage in any such harrasment, > even if it was possible. I can understand that. However, we cannot say "the QPL is Free because the non-Free clauses will not be executed by one particular user of the QPL". Furthermore, if upstream has no intention of engaging in such harrassment, perhaps they could be persuaded to waive the clause that gives them the ability to do so. (Yes, I do understand that upstream does not like to deal with licensing issues.) - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: An old question of EGE's
> "Brian" == Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Brian> The idea from DFSG 3 that modifications must be able to be Brian> "distributed under the same terms as the license of the Brian> original software" seems to be an important component of Brian> Freedom. I really do think, on consideration, that this Brian> means the actual license I had, not a big document listing Brian> all of the licenses I might get if I paid the author or Brian> became a teacher or ceased to operate nuclear power plants. So are you now disagreeing with your responses to my message about licenses that provide additional permissions to classes of users? (I've thought about your desire to rephrase in terms of restrictions and additional permissions. I believe that it is additional permissions we discuss here, not additional restrictions. The reason is that the default state in copyright is that you have no permission; we speak of limited grants of copyright, not limited restrictions.)
Re: More questions about the QPL for compilers and other things
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:32:47PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > I see compilers -- and not just LISP compilers -- all the time, which > claim to control how their output may be used. The intel compiler, > for example, has an expensive license if you wish to build products > for commercial sale. Metrowerks Codewarrior used to be under a > similar license; I assume it still is. This is no guarantee that such restrictions are grounded in copyright law. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:56:50AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Under the GPL, the government can just pass a law requiring that all > > > >> distributed source code be provided to the government. > > > > >Except that there are no such governments. Get back to me when that > > > >actually happens. > > > > If there were such a government, would you question the GPL's freedom? > > > In that country, it would not be free. > > I disagree. This is not relevant to the freedom of the license, because > it's an additional restriction imposed by a *third party* (in this case, > a government), and not something that can be fixed by additional > permission grants from the licensor. > > Free software licensing presupposes that the copyright holder has the > ability to grant you certain freedoms over the code. When this is not > the case due to outside forces (e.g., patent holders or averse > governments), we should not view this as a flaw in the license if this > license gives us the *author's* permission to exercise those freedoms > with the code. If I can't modify and distribute the software, how can you call the software free? This is not like patents or other usual suspects (e.g. govt regulations on crypto), which depend on the contents of the software. Rather it flows directly from the license and its interaction with the law. The author can make the software free by using a BSD license. As another example, what if there were a jurisdiction where recipients automatically receive the right to modify and distribute unless otherwise explicitly specified. Then a simple "Copyright (C) 2000 Steve Langasek" would be free. I agree that these examples are rather outlandish, which is why I don't worry about it as a practical matter. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
QPL clause 6 irrelevant?
Greetings, I've noticed an older discussion about the QPL http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00626.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00519.html which argues that clause 6 gives additional permissions (like clause 3b and 3c of the GPL), with clauses 3 and 4 of the QPL being the DFSG-free path. In that case, clause 6 is irrelevant. I brought this up in June http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00049.html regarding libcwd. At the time, I didn't see any dissents, and I haven't seen anyone else bring up that angle. If you look at the ocaml licensing page http://caml.inria.fr/ocaml/LICENSE.html you could argue that the ocaml authors agree with this interpretation. So, first of all, does anyone dissent now? If not, I think as long as the ocaml authors agree with that interpretation, clause 6 is not a problem. However, the choice of venue is still a problem. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: An old question of EGE's
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:37:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > The idea from DFSG 3 that modifications must be able to be > "distributed under the same terms as the license of the > original software" seems to be an important component of Freedom. I > really do think, on consideration, that this means the actual license > I had, not a big document listing all of the licenses I might get if I > paid the author or became a teacher or ceased to operate nuclear power > plants. What about a viral (can't remove permissions) license that, among other, free terms (eg. "include source with all copies"), said: 7: Teachers may distribute the work to students without including source. This is part of the same license, a special exception to make educational use more convenient. I don't think we'd consider it non-free, since it's just an additional permission for specific conditions. This seems functionally identical to what you're objecting to: you're required to give a special set of people additional permissions for your modifications--permissions which even you don't have in the original code (since you're not a teacher). In this form, it seems to pass this interpretation of DFSG#3, since the additional permission is a term of the same license you have; it's just not a clause that you can make use of. A real example of this is the "operating system" exception in the GPL, which Debian can't make use of, but must regardless extend to others. The only difference I can see is that a teacher only receives this permission when he receives a copy of the work; if somebody doesn't receive a copy, they don't get a license, so you can't be compelled to extend a license to anybody. I don't know if this is an important point or not (what good is a license to my work if you don't have a copy?) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:43PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:08:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > > > On 2004-07-21 13:48:58 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >Please don't bother writing to me again. [...] > > > > > > > > Sven, you need rough consensus that ocaml follows the DFSG. If you > > > > move to kill this discussion now by spamming the list with notices not > > > > > > No, i move to kill Brian's participation in it. He is only sputting > > > uniformed bullshit, and is losing my time. I won't have anything to > > > do with him anymore, and i question the legitimity of any > > > debian-legal conslusion in which he participated. > > > > At least Brian is friendly. > > Well, sure, but full of bullshit and making extravagant claims, even > if the response to those was given a few mails earlier in the > thread. He also refuses to do his homework, and thus only > participates in lengthening the discussion process and reaching no > solution. I don't see why he should participate, since he clearly > has no legal clue, refuses to get advice, and ignores the advice i > got, refuse to read the mails posted in this thread, or fails to > understand them. I feel Brian has been a good citizen of debian-legal. He makes reasonable arguments, and does not devolve into ad hominem attacks on people who disagree. The post you referenced about the compiler interjecting parts of itself into the result was not an unreasonable question to ask. It may turn out to be inapplicable in this case, but it was not an unreasonable question to ask. > In any of these cases, unless he makes his homework before making > extravagant claims, he is only loosing everyones time, and delaying > the resolution of this issue consequently. > > Also he self claimed he has a vested interest in this, and it is not clear > that he would accept a minor modification for making the ocaml licence free, > since he is after making proprietary modification of the ocaml code base. > > And to end it all, it is he who dragged me in this mess. He reported a bug based on the consensus of debian-legal. It was only after the bug was reported that we saw you (Sven) and Matthew Garrett argue against that consensus (I think those are the only ones. There are an awful lot of messages in the thread). While Matthew has always given up reasonable arguments trying to elucidate the basis for arguments, your arguments have been vituperative and full of derision. > So, if i am going to accept the resolution of debian-legal and go upstream > with it, i don't want to see him participating. If he want, he can start > another Brian-bullshit only thread with all those of you who want to lose > their time and do circular discussion about chinese dissident and Brian's > right to do proprietary modification, but i don't want to have anything to do > with it, and i don't consider it binding as far as the ocaml package is > related. You'll have to go somewhere else. Brian has acquitted himself well on this list, and I see no reason to exclude him from it. > Friendly, Please try harder. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:19:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > >>On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: >> >>>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:01:50PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Thanks, but in all this thread, i have not seen a single reasonable >suggestion, so i have some doubts about this. Yes, you have: dual-license under the GPL. It's a completely reasonable, >>> >>>Thanks all the same. It is unreasonable, since it is totally opposite to what >>>upstream is trying to achieve. >> >>According to my best interpretation of msgid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], >>OCaml upstream wants to either: >> >>1) be able to take other people's modifications proprietary. That's fine >>for them, it's just non-free for us. > > Oh, ok. do we have a consensus on that ? could you point out why in clear > points of the DFSG, and not some far fetched and controversed island paradise > metahpors. Notice that the FSF doesn't seem toi think so, and it would make > the BSD non-free, would it not ? As far as I can tell, there is no consensus on whether "upstream gets an all-permissive license" is non-free. I personally consider it acceptable but obnoxious. The primary problem is with "you must send upstream your changes on request", which only gets worse in combination with "upstream gets an all-permissive license". >>OR >> >>2) Wants to be able to relicence OCaml to others under a proprietary licence >>for a fee, in order to fund further development. That's even finer, and can >>be done by either writing it all themselves (and hence having nobody else's >>licence to worry about), or getting copyright assignments or >>totally-permissive grants from everyone whose contributions they incorporate >>into OCaml. >>1) is non-free, no matter what licence they use. 2) doesn't require the QPL >>(which I feel is non-free for a variety of reasons). > > Ah, and the FSF strongly encouraging me to give them copyright of any > contribution to an FSF project is not ? "Strongly encouraging" is not "forcing". If the FSF required you to assign copyright on your changes in order to distribute the software, that would be non-free. >>I understand you know upstream and their foibles, and that's great -- it's > > Yeah, and years of licence discussion and haggling with them to obtain what we > have. Now, if i come forward and tell them the QPL is non-free, i imagine them > already thinking "what do they want now, 3 years ago, both them and the FSF > said the QPL was ok ? Why should i ever believe them again on a subjet like > this" especially if the only suggestion is "use the GPL". Please read http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01001.html before believing that the QPL was previously considered Free. >>want to follow. But Debian has one as well, and when the two conflict, > > Sure, but please hold it post sarge release, or go fight binary kernel module > writers, which are in much worse violation of the licences, and even a threat > to the future of free software. Debian has an obligation to its users to handle all licensing issues, not just the most important or most severe. >>there will be discussion. You can help upstream by summarising the result >>of this discussion for them. From what I can see, one of the major > > Yeah, but when i started to discuss real issues, like the question of fee for > data transfer in clause 6c, or the dureation of the requirement, nobody > discussed it, so ... > >>that the licence that the OCaml people have carefully chosen is violently >>disliked by several people on d-legal. Unfortunately, life is full of bad >>news. > > But was fine three years ago when they chose it, and this had some influence > about their chosing of it. What thrust will they have in our decisions if we > don't stand by it, especially as i am sure most people participating in this > have not read previous threads about this issue ? Again, see above; the QPL was not necessarily considered Free at the time either. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: More questions about the QPL for compilers and other things
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I see compilers -- and not just LISP compilers -- all the time, which > claim to control how their output may be used. The intel compiler, > for example, has an expensive license if you wish to build products > for commercial sale. Metrowerks Codewarrior used to be under a > similar license; I assume it still is. If that's done by means of a contract then it's not relevant to the question of whether there is copyrightable material in the compiler output. A contract can make all sorts of restrictions that have nothing to do with copyright law.
Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:54:18AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > However, it's probably worth noting that there's a big difference between > [a] using the GPL verbatim and providing some additional license, and > [b] using some other license which happens to include terms from the GPL. > > This thread was based on an instance of [a]. [When this thread started, > that instance was non-distributable because of a silly mistake. It has > since been fixed.] > > I would hope that this is obvious -- we'd have serious problems if it > were not. I'm still slightly confused. How can the intent of the license have been that the "modifications you submit are ours" clause have been a separate license? License to what? If it's a separate license, it seems to have no binding force at all; if it's a separate license, I'd imagine we could simply remove it with impunity and avoid the confusion (which I'd doubt). It seems to me that it was intended to be an condition added to the GPL. I'm not getting into the "self-contained GPL" argument here; I'm only talking about intent. I suppose asking upstream would be a better approach ... -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:27:05PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>The correct course of action is for d-legal to make a reasonable suggestion, >> >>Thanks, but in all this thread, i have not seen a single reasonable >>suggestion, so i have some doubts about this. > > Yes, you have: dual-license under the GPL. It's a completely reasonable, > sane suggestion, applicable in the vast majority of cases. It may very > well not be applicable in this particular case, but it's still a sane and > reasonable suggestion in most cases, and fits my explanation of "course of > action" exactly. For that matter, I also mentioned that the alternative of simply waiving the two problematic clauses, which would be the smallest possible change, will be included in the second draft of the summary. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Web application licenses
Michael Poole wrote: > Josh Triplett writes: >>How about something vaguely like: >> >>""" >>If you make the software or a work based on the software available for >>direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software >>to that party, you must either: >> >>a) Distribute the complete corresponding machine-readable source code >>publically under this license, or >>b) Make the source code available to that party, under the all the same >>conditions you would need to meet in GPL section 3 if you were >>distributing a binary to that party. >>""" > > For the purposes of making it a purely copyright based license, it is > probably desirable to only have such a clause kick in for works based > on the software. Use (whether by the recipient or by third parties) > of software is not, as far as I know, a right reserved under copyright > law -- but preparing a derived work is. Agreed, especially considering that if the work was completely unmodified and separate, then you could just as easily obtain the source of the original Free Software program (assuming it is generally available, which will cover the vast majority of cases). So other than that, you would consider this clause Free? > At least one previous discussion has mentioned "public performance" of > a work being controlled by copyright, and using this as a lever to > achieve the above. My reading of 17 USC 106(4) suggests that this is > not applicable to software. > (See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html) Based on that, it indeed does not seem to apply, assuming that the software cannot be construed as an "audiovisual work" (which would depend on the software). - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: Worse, the QPL is not DFSG-free
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 03:40:54AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: reasonable. We've asked many software authors to do similar things in the past, with very frequent success, and less laughter and anger than you seem to think. >>> >>>Yes, but it is by no means reason enough to declare the QPL non-free. >> >>I didn't claim that it was, so this statement isn't relevant. > > > Ok, so everything is fine, and there is no reason to change the licence, nor > to remove ocaml from the sarge release at the last minute. > > Why do you think such a suggestion would be ridiculed in this case? I >>> >>>Because, in my case at least, the upstream authors chose the QPL after >>>long discutions, because they are interested in their properties. The >>>ocaml upstream authors are a research team in the french inria, which is >>>a state institute, so the academic world and not some evil corporation >>>or something. They want to be able to provide ocaml under other licence >>>to users who request it in order to get more founding to be able to hire >>>more developers, since after all they are but a bunch of people, and can >>>not do everything. Also they are mostly interested in a licence which >>>doesn't cause them problems, and legal issues are more a trouble to >>>them, as it is too me, than some kind of recreation, as it is for most >>>of you here. In this light and knowing the history of the licence >>>change of ocaml, from the original non-free licence (source only patch >>>only distribution of modifications possible), i can assure you that they >>>will find it ridicoulous at best, and be irritated or angry at worst to >>>a "Use the GPL" kind of solution. >> >>I'm sorry you assume that everyone's immediate response to these issues >>will be ridicule and anger. It simply hasn't been my experience. (However, >>my experience with you is that your immediate response to these issues is >>ridicule and anger, which gives me some understanding of why you would >>assume others will behave similarly.) > > > Hey, did you read what i said ? I have been in the discussion with upstream > about this issue since 6 years now, and even RMS contributed to that > discussion, and claimed the current licence was ok (Well, he suggested the > LGPL + exception for the runtime libraries, in a way that mirrors how the gcc > package does it). As thus, if i go with ridicoulous arguments to upstream, > then i will be either laughed at, or no longer considered as a valid > discussion partner on this issue, in both case i loose whatever influence i > have with upstream about this issue, which i don't want to. And not only have > i not read valid argumentation, my counter-arguments where ignored, as was my > asking for people in this discussion to CC me as i have some trouble following > debian-legal, not being subscribed to it. > A> If upstream chose this licence it was after years of discussion and thinking, > not a spur of the moment/follow trolltech's lead kind of decision like you are > implying. And by taking that kind of implications you somehow belittle the > capacity of understanding licences from upstream, and dismiss all the > discussion that lead to the current state of things. And i can assure you that > the current situation is much nicer than the patch only, no modified binary > distribution that we used to have before. > > >>"Use the GPL" is a reasonable suggestion to most users of the QPL, since >>many people who use the QPL were following TrollTech's lead, and most of >>those people have since followed it further and dual-licensed under the >>GPL. You're saying that this is an exception to that: people who are >>using the QPL on its own merits, and not simply because TrollTech did > > > Yep, and i believe that the Apple licence, the NPL and many other such ones > have similar properties. Why are we not picking on them ? The APSL was found to be non-free (see thread starting at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00545.html), and as far as I know there is no software solely under the NPL in Debian, so it is not relevant. >>>Also, one of the clauses you have problems with, the "court of venue", >>>if waived, might limit their possibilities to defend against people not >>>respecting the licence, and since one of their problematic is for big >>>corporation including their changes in java or other such bytecode >>>running languages (think C# and a corporation known for stealing code), >>>this may be quite reasonable. >> >>Then please calm down, stop expressing your fear of ridicule, and argue >>this position. > > I did, nobody even bothered to respond. Defense is much less of a problem than attack. A license that said "if you sue us, you must do so in this jurisdiction" would be far less problematic (and Free in several people's opinions including my own) than a license that says "we can sue you and you must come to this jurisdiction to defend yourself". (See http://lists
Re: GPL-compatible, copyleft documentation license
Evan Prodromou wrote: > Florian Weimer wrote: >> I fail to see how this is a "grievous restriction" because >> common courtesy already tells us to honor such requests.. > > Actually, I think the freedom to make modifications that the upstream > author doesn't like or approve is a pretty key freedom. I agree entirely. It is a freedom that Debian would be very hesitant to actually exercise, but it is a key freedom. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Web application licenses
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 07:45:03PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > Josh Triplett writes: > > > How about something vaguely like: > > > > """ > > If you make the software or a work based on the software available for > > direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software > > to that party, you must either: > > > > a) Distribute the complete corresponding machine-readable source code > > publically under this license, or > > b) Make the source code available to that party, under the all the same > > conditions you would need to meet in GPL section 3 if you were > > distributing a binary to that party. > > """ > > For the purposes of making it a purely copyright based license, it is > probably desirable to only have such a clause kick in for works based > on the software. Use (whether by the recipient or by third parties) > of software is not, as far as I know, a right reserved under copyright > law -- but preparing a derived work is. > > At least one previous discussion has mentioned "public performance" of > a work being controlled by copyright, and using this as a lever to > achieve the above. My reading of 17 USC 106(4) suggests that this is > not applicable to software. > (See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html) And indeed, given the classification of software as a literary work, I am not at all convinced that it is possible to write a license with a restriction that closes the "remote application hole". -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Why should free software support companies in not releasing their >> knowledge to the world? Why do we consider the freedom to hoard >> information an important one? > >I'm not sure we do, and this is somewhat off-topic, but: > >- The information in question will be made public in due course. It's >not like a UK state secret. But that's a period of time where other people could be making use of it. >- If a company is prevented from keeping its plans confidential then >it will have a hard time competing with other companies that do keep >their plans confidential. Indeed. There's several ways in which various licenses fail to make life easy for companies that want to enage in closed behaviour. >- I don't think we should be trying to make a list of all the freedoms >that we consider to be important and allowing licences to restrict any >freedom that isn't in our list. A better approach, I think, is to be >suspicious of any restrictions that are not easily justified as a >means of furthering software freedom. In general, I don't think it >helps free software for licences to restrict privacy and >confidentiality of business plans, hardware designs, etc. However, I >don't necessarily claim that such restrictions make a licence >non-free; I am undecided about that. I entirely agree. It's all a balancing act - I just about err on feeling that forced passing upstream of distributed modifications helps freedom more than it hinders it, but it certainly doesn't make me happy. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:58:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> I would argue against any assertion that there's strong consensus that >> "distribute to upstream authors" is a "worse" restriction than >> "distribute source too". > >I'll certainly throw my hat in in favour of "to upstream" being worse than >"source if binaries". Firstly, there's an "advancing freedom" argument -- >ensuring recipients have source code (if they want it) has a great practical >advantage to freedom. I hope you agree with that (if not, we have more >fundamental disagreements than this small matter). But being obliged to pass stuff upstream also has an "advancing freedom" argument. Hoarding of code does little for freedom. >Next, there's the issue of cost -- presumably it is of trivial cost (or even >profitable) to me to distribute to my recipient, because otherwise I >wouldn't be doing it. It's unlikely that distributing source alongside >the binaries will significantly increase that cost -- and the GPL (the >most common example of this form of distribution) specifically allows >the recouping of distribution costs for source. In many cases, yes. In other cases (say, on a desert island with enough CDs to either burn one useful program and source or two useful programs without source), there may be a significant cost to providing source. >However, it may not be a >trivial cost to distribute changes back to the original author -- in cases >previously hypothesised, it may even be illegal. It is also unlikely to be >trivial to determine what cost I may incur in sending the changes back >upstream at the time I decide to exercise my granted permissions. In the vast majority of cases, the cost of distributing changes to the original author is not going to be large. We can construct fringe cases in which it may be, but it's not clear that they're significantly more common than fringe cases that the GPL comes up against. >Finally, there is the matter of choice. I can choose who I distribute my >modified version to, and hence who receives the source. I cannot choose to >send my modifications upstream -- I am compelled to if I wish to exercise my >granted permissions. You may argue that I can avoid sending changes >upstream by not making changes, but that's a bollocks argument -- if I >cannot exercise the rights guaranteed to be available by the DFSG for a free >licence, then that licence is not free. But exercising your DFSG rights to distribute binaries gives you an obligation to provide the source in the case of the GPL. You can't choose to give your binaries to someone if you don't want to give them your source. You can avoid giving them the source by not giving them the binaries, but then that's preventing you from exercising DFSG rights. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue
> "Edmund" == Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Edmund> Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Note that even if we end up disagreeing on this issue, I'm >> still interested in helping draft GRs to address conclusions of >> the QPL discussion. I think some of these issues are fairly >> important to actually bring to the project; they keep coming up >> again in multiple contexts and I'd like to know how the project >> as a whole feels because it would make evaluating licenses >> easier. Edmund> In Edmund> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/01/msg00051.html Edmund> it is claimed that "you must send your changes back Edmund> upstream" requirements have been rejected as DFSG-free by Edmund> debian-legal since 1998. I agree that forcing people to send changes upstream should be non-free. I think I disagree with the long-standing justification for why the DFSG already says this. I'd be happier if it was explicit. But Brian and I were not really discussing forced distribution; we seem to both agree that is non-free. We were discussing licenses that allowed the upstream author to do proprietary things with contributions while restricting others from doing so.
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:25:19PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > >>On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:23:40AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: >> >>>I agree with this interpretation to a large degree. The examples in the DFSG >>>for fields of endeavor are explicit examples, and thus imply some sort of >>>explicit discrimination (such as "No one involved in genetic engineering may >>>use this software") rather than an unintentional discrimination against >>>corner >>>cases. Licenses which require distribution of modifications to upstream >>>authors are not discriminating against castaways any more than the GPL is >>>discriminating against people who somehow lose all copies of the source to >>>their modifications after distributing modified binaries. >> >>This is why DFSG#5 and #6 are fairly useless, in practice. I can't think of >>any license that actually explicitly said "may not be used for bioweapons >>research", clauses that clearly fall under those guidelines. Any less > > "No commercial use" is the usual one. I'm pretty sure I've seen a licence > that prohibited use in genetics research, and I'm quite sure there's been > one that prohibited use in nuclear facilities (although that was more of an > overzealous warranty disclaimer, from memory). I also recall licenses that prohibited use in various types of weapons. For that matter, there is also the "Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement" (HESSLA), as described by the GNU project on http://www.gnu.org/licenses/hessla.html (although the original project seems to be defunct at the moment). It prohibits use in spyware and by governments that violate human rights. As ridiculous as it sounds, that is actually a form of discrimination and use restriction, which makes the license not DFSG-free. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> I don't believe licenses should affect the distribution of anything >> other than the code they cover. > >I mostly agree with that sentiment, and think it stems from DFSG 9.[1] >But regardless, there isn't a requirement of the DFSG saying that >explicitely, which is one of the reasons why I brought it up. I think part of our problem is that we're not really clear on what "restriction" means. The two choices seem to be something like the way it's used in the GPL (so anything that requires you to do anything), or alternatively something that actually prevents you from doing something rather than merely making you jump through more hoops. >> There's no consistent and coherent argument going on, other than a >> sort of fuzzy "We think it's not free, and we can sort of point at >> these two things and handwave and say they cover them". > > DFSG 5 No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups > The license must not discriminate against any person or group of > persons. Indeed. >As had been mentioned earlier, the argument is that because dissidents >living in some country (or persons living on a desert island) are >either persons or a group of persons, and are discriminated against by >a clause of this license, then that particular clause fails DFSG 5. I don't believe that dissidents are discriminated against by the license. They're discriminated against by their government. Interestingly, there appears to have been no discussion as to what DFSG 5 actually meant while the discussion regarding the original social contract went on. The only examples people use are things like nationality. It's certainly not obvious that it was intended that things like "This license can not be satisfied by people without the ability to communicate with upstream" should fall under clause 5. Of course, that discussion happened over 7 years ago. In the absence of it being made clear then, we need to try to work out what people think now. >> The GPL discriminates against a slightly smaller set of >> dissidents. The GPL discriminates against people on desert islands >> who have a binary CD but not a source one. > >If worst comes to worst, we can use DFSG 10 to avoid this issue, and >use it to define the line where the dissident tests can no longer be >applied. Which is a dreadful fudge. Interestingly, the original drafts of the DFSG *don't* have DFSG 10 as an indepedent point - it's an informational footer. It's not until it gets "reformatted" that it suddenly gets given the same priority as the other points. To be honest, I think it makes far more sense in its original form. >Have you given it any thought yourself? [Or, to put it another way, >how would you define where the line should be drawn in this particular >case?] I think the line should be positioned based on some amount of cost-benefit analysis with a healthy dose of pragmatism built in. For example, I don't care much about people on desert islands. If they're the only thing standing between a license being free or not, and if there's a demonstrable benefit to us for including that software, I'm entirely happy that they be ignored (possibly we should use the extra money we make from the extra CDs sold to fund a trip to get them off the bloody island). Of course, this mostly just turns the argument into one about weightings. Since these are mostly determined by personal opinion, it suggests that there isn't a correct place to draw the line. The only real suggestion I have is wider discussion in an attempt to gain a better understanding of how different people view the issue. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: request-tracker3: licence problem
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 09:24:23AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > I'm not certain most bug-fix patches are copyrightable -- for example, > if an author has typed "if (x = 0) ..." and I fix that to "if (0 == x) > ..." then I haven't really contributed anything creative, and I don't > think I own any copyright in the result. I agree with that. > For larger patches, which really do have creative content, this could > be a serious problem. I imagine that BP would be interested to talk > about this, since sacrificing user bug reports is a serious cost. That's the ones they should worry about losing. They should certainly be made aware of it, and (very importantly) so should the Debian maintainer.
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>Do you see anything in the QPL that says the original developer can only >>request your changes once? They can ask twelve times a day if they >>want, and you have to comply; there is nothing in the license that says >>otherwise. For that matter, do you see anything in the QPL that says >>the original developer has to compensate you for the costs of providing >>your changes (bandwidth charges for network distribution, or media costs >>for physical distribution)? >> >>- Josh Triplett >> >>[Do you want both of your email addresses CCed on these mails?] > > I recommend CCing both of them twelve times a day for good measure. As amusing as that comment is, it isn't really appropriate; he does have a valid concern about being kept in the loop, and I certainly don't mind doing so. > finely honed legal arguments like the above! Thank you very much. :) > I think contracts often don't specify things like how rapidly a letter > must be answered, etc, so people apply established standards and > common sense. I don't know what the standard would be in this case, > but maybe 28 days would be an appropriate time for responding to a > request for changes, and common sense says you can ignore further > requests while dealing with the first request, so maybe you would have > to send your changes every 28 days. Still, if you're a Chinese > Dissident stranded on a Desert Island that could be quite a burden ... It would certainly be nice if licenses were interpreted by reasonable people who apply common sense, but unfortunately they often end up being interpreted by nitpicky lawyers instead. :) - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Sven Luther wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:05:40AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > >>Sven Luther wrote: >> >>>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Well, simply configuring your SVN/CVS/ARCH/Whatever archive to spam >upstream >with every change done should resolve all the issue. Or maybe giving him >consultation access would be enough. Spamming upstream is not enough. You have to provide one on request, even if you just sent one. Additionally, now you're suggesting doing away with the ability to make private modifications. >>> >>>Bullshit, you have provided it before it was asked, so where is the problem ? >> >>Do you see anything in the QPL that says the original developer can only >>request your changes once? They can ask twelve times a day if they > > Well, whatever is the problem ? You provide it to them, and if they ask you > again, you either say, sorry, i sent it to you already, and haven't got a > backup copy, would you like the latest version perhaps ? If you already > fullfilled the request before you are asked, where is the problem. >From the QPL: > c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the > initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, > then you must supply one. Where in there does it say that you may refuse to supply a copy if you have already provided one? >>want, and you have to comply; there is nothing in the license that says >>otherwise. For that matter, do you see anything in the QPL that says >>the original developer has to compensate you for the costs of providing >>your changes (bandwidth charges for network distribution, or media costs >>for physical distribution)? > > Yes, since the distribution will happen accordying to 6a, which says you can > charge for the cost of data transfer. >From the QPL: > c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the > initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, > then you must supply one. Where in there does it say that the copy you supply to the initial developer is covered by the terms of 6.a? 6.a only covers recipients who have a binary and want the source. In this case, if you are distributing source (that is not available to the general public), then the source is one of the "items" in question, and it must be provided under 6.c, which does not indicate that you may charge for cost of distribution. >>[Do you want both of your email addresses CCed on these mails?] > > Not really, but i prefer more of them than none at all, as hiting D is easier > than reading mail in lynx. No problem; I'll continue to CC [EMAIL PROTECTED] on all of my mails related to the QPL discussions. (Are you using webmail through lynx?) - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Web application licenses
Josh Triplett writes: > How about something vaguely like: > > """ > If you make the software or a work based on the software available for > direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software > to that party, you must either: > > a) Distribute the complete corresponding machine-readable source code > publically under this license, or > b) Make the source code available to that party, under the all the same > conditions you would need to meet in GPL section 3 if you were > distributing a binary to that party. > """ For the purposes of making it a purely copyright based license, it is probably desirable to only have such a clause kick in for works based on the software. Use (whether by the recipient or by third parties) of software is not, as far as I know, a right reserved under copyright law -- but preparing a derived work is. At least one previous discussion has mentioned "public performance" of a work being controlled by copyright, and using this as a lever to achieve the above. My reading of 17 USC 106(4) suggests that this is not applicable to software. (See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html) Michael Poole
Re: GPL-compatible, copyleft documentation license
Florian Weimer wrote:
In software documentation, an original author could require that
changelogs or discussion of differences in design or implementation
("Original Author had it this way; the new version does it this other
way") be removed.
Replacing "Evan Prodromou" with "Original Author" would probably be
enough to honor requests under the CC license mentioned in this
subthread.
That's not how I read "any reference". Can you explain why you read it that way?
I fail to see how this is a "grievous restriction" because
common courtesy already tells us to honor such requests..
Actually, I think the freedom to make modifications that the upstream author
doesn't like or approve is a pretty key freedom.
I'm also confused by the moral rights issue. Under a moral rights regime, does
an author have the right to have any reference to themselves removed from works?
~ESP
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>So, have you found something non-free that cannot be justified by the >>DFSG? Would you be willing wo work on wording for a modification to >>the DFSG? If you need sponsors I would be happy to help. > > I don't think that the QPL requires any changes to the DFSG to be > clearly non-free. That is, the choice-of-venue clause and the full > publication of any distributed change both have clear grounding in the > DFSG. Would you might clarifying what that grounding is (or pointing me at a particular message that does so)? I'm currently drafting the second draft of the QPL summary, and that's one of the few things I'm still working on: a well-grounded justification from the actual text of the DFSG. The "fee" angle seems nebulous, and hard to justify; I more-or-less agree with it, but I need a clear way to justify why it is only a "royalty or other fee" if it is "paid" to the upstream developer, and not if it is "paid" to someone you are already distributing the software to. > Before this issue comes up again with a more closely worded license, I > do think there's an aspect of freedom generally recognized by people > here which *should* be part of the DFSG. It wasn't a big deal in the > free-software community when the DFSG was written, but it's become so > since. It's the second biggest distinction between how the OSI read > the same text that we have: the fairness issue that I posted about > earlier today. > > I'd very much like some help in phrasing that properly. I think that the vast majority of the fairness issue is captured by DFSG 3: > Derived Works > > The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must > allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of --- > the original software. - - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue
Matthew Garrett wrote: > Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:05:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> >>>2) In the case of a BSD-style license with a QPL-style forced >>>distribution upstream clause, there would be no need for a QPL-style >>>permissions grant. Upstream could subsume it into their closed product >>>anyway. >> >>But I could do the same to their work under a BSD licence. I can't do that >>with a QPL-licenced work. It's all about equality. It's not necessarily a >>*good* outcome, but it's a *better* outcome. > > I don't think a license that allows people to produce closed products is > a good license. I think a license that allows precisely one person to > produce a closed product is better than one that allows many people to > do so. I still don't think it's good, but I certainly don't think it's > non-free. Why is equality so much of an issue? Very well put. That's exactly my reasoning behind saying the "upstream gets an all-permissive license" requirement is acceptable and just obnoxious. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>Given the GPL we seem to have accepted the premise that a license >>may require all modifications to be distributed under the same >>license as the original work itself. > > That also seems like a reasonable conclusion. An interesting > corollary is that you can compel distribution to be under a more or > less restrictive license -- imagine an interactive program which > derives from a GPL'd library, for example, and see that it has a > notice-preservation clause which was null in the original. No, you must have the right to distribute the software under the same license you received it under. That one is spelled out clearly in the DFSG: > 3. Derived Works > > The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must > allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of > the original software. > So, for example, a license which was a copyleft, but granted a more > liberal license for educational purposes would be Free. The copyleft > could even carry the requirement of the liberal educational-use license > along. That would still be free, I think. I have some doubt about > the requirement, but I *think* it's free. Yes, I agree that it would be Free, if strange. > The doubt comes from the idea that the license document grants me some > particular license. It's free to compel me to pass along the freedoms > I had; it's not free to compel me to do other things. I didn't have > the freedom of the liberal, educational-use-only license, so I > shouldn't have to pass that along. If the original license said "GPL, but additionally MIT for educational use, and you must grant the same two licenses", then you could pass along the dual-licensed work under the same dual-license, and keep all of your rights, even if you couldn't necessarily take advantage of the MIT license because your use wasn't "educational use". > On the other hand, we accept that in the GPL: I may have received an > interactive program and not been free to strip out the notice at > startup, but if I pass along just a library, then some later person > can make an interactive program which doesn't have a notice. That's an interesting point. If you modify the program to be non-interactive (with #if 0, for example), you can then remove the notice. If you then modify the program to be interactive again, nothing obligates you to re-add the notice. > I think those two cases have to be in the same class, and so with some > slight reservation would call them both Free. If you can pass along the same license, which is Free for all users and more Free for some, then it is Free. If you have to distribute under a license that wasn't granted to you, it isn't Free. >>The combined effect of these two statements seems to be that you can >>create a license that grants extra permissions to some class of >>people, even for all modifications that are distributed. (I don't >>think the QPL is such a license, but the reason it is not such a >>license seems relatively easy to overcome. It's still non-free for >>other reasons.) > > To certain classes of people, yes. I think that there are probably some > exceptions, though. I think the original author is probably one of > these. Hm. Maybe if not combined with forced distribution at all, > it's not that bad. It's still not something I'm thrilled about > releasing software under, but if I can make changes, give them to my > friends, and ignore the rest of the world, I suppose I don't have to > care. Agreed. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue
Matthew Garrett wrote: > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>For example, let's say I give some software under the QPL to Alice. I >>also give it under the GPL to Bob. Alice doesn't propagate hers, and >>tells me this. Bob does propagate his. It gets back to the initial >>developer, INRIA. Now INRIA has my code, with a permissive license I >>didn't want to give them! > > Your fault for releasing the code under the QPL. The same could have > happened if you'd released it under BSD. Except that the code in question was not distributed to the initial developer under the QPL; it was distributed under the GPL. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Web application licenses [was Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report]
Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:09:20PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: >>The exception I mentioned would be for web application-type software. >>I am somewhat biased since the free software I write and maintain is >>in that category, but I think it is justifiable for a license to >>require that someone who makes a modified version of free software >>operable by others also make the modified source available to those >>users. The hard balance there is between copyleft-style code sharing >>and the burden imposed on operators of kiosks or embedded devices, >>where users may not care about the source code (or who may request it >>en masse to protest unrelated issues). > > I've seen general, vague agreement with this in principle, but I don't > think anyone has come up with a license implementing this without creating > lots of problems. How about something vaguely like: """ If you make the software or a work based on the software available for direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software to that party, you must either: a) Distribute the complete corresponding machine-readable source code publically under this license, or b) Make the source code available to that party, under the all the same conditions you would need to meet in GPL section 3 if you were distributing a binary to that party. """ "direct" handles the problem of needing to provide the software you use to run a service business to the customers of that business; it limits the obligation to software a user interacts with directly. Part a) makes it unnecessary to provide the software specifically to any given user if you are already distributing the software publically; it is there mostly for convenience of distributors. Part b) covers the case in which you are not distributing the software publically, but you are providing it for use by another party; the reference to GPL section 3 avoids needing to explicitly specify all the ways you may distribute and all the obligations regarding distribution. (This clause is written as though it were to be used as part of the GPL; if it weren't, it should be more specific about what "GPL" it is referring to, or just include the relevant clauses directly.) - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Sven Luther wrote: > Well, so what. This only proves that there are licences which allow > proprietary product, and i would never voluntary release code under such a > licence, and they are other who don't. Neither would I. However, my issue with the QPL is not that I would want to take the software proprietary, but that I might want to distribute Free Software between a few people, giving those people all the freedoms expected for Free Software. If I take a GPLed program, modify it, and distribute the modified version among a few people, then as long as those people also have the source (or an offer for the source), then no one is being deprived of Freedom, and the software is not proprietary. Giving someone a binary without the source prevents them from exercising their rights over that software. Giving someone no program at all does not restrict their rights, any more than giving someone no money: I am not obligated to distribute to them. That said, I personally think that under almost all circumstances, it is a good idea to provide your changes upstream. >>>Also, i also doubt that this is a way debian is confortable goind, and that >>>allowance of proprietary modifications over other considerations is the path >>>we are conforable threading. >> >>You doubt that which is the way Debian is comfortable going? > > To make allowance to proprietary modification hoarder, like you seem to be. Again, modifications shared amonst a group, with everyone in that group having Freedom, are not proprietary. offers lots of permission, and asks nothing. It's more generous than "fair". The GPL is "fair": it offers many permissions, but some of them can only be exercised if you pass the same permissions on to others. That is, it's a copyleft. But it's probably the most restrictive you can be and still be "fair". >>> >>>Whatever. you want to modify ocaml, and not give back your changes to the >>>community. You have no sympathy from me, neither probably from a waste >>>majority of the debian project. >>> >>>Also you lying, claiming consensus, while there is no such thing, doesn't >>>endear you to me. >> >>I don't think personal insults really help anything. What I see is a > > Well, you claimed there was a consensus, while there is clearly no such thing. > Thus it is a lie intended to get the maintainer to take the course of action > you want through FUD, or at best a misinformed claim you should apologize for. The consensus on debian-legal seems to be strongly against the QPL. >>bunch of generic agreement that there's a problem with the QPL -- that > > A bunch of posts from yourself and a few select others make a consensus, and > there has been no disagrement. Out of hand i remember at least two people who > strongly disagreed. > > >>it's non-free, and that it's probably DFSG-nonfree , but that either way >>what it requires isn't something which Debian should be shipping to >>users and saying, "it's OK to modify this, you have all these freedoms >>listed in the DFSG". > > Well, again, if it came to a GR i doubt debian would actively support code > hoarders. There are many freedoms that Debian requires which it would never excercise itself, or at least would never do so lightly. For example, the freedom to fork, or the freedom to distribute software that does not conform to some standard, or the freedom to distribute software privately. >>On the other side of that issue, I see you and a couple others calling >>the people here lazy, deceitful, and lying. You suggest that users >>should violate licenses because they won't get caught. > > I didn't do that, but you obviously neither read nor understood what i said > nor the QPL itself, so ... To the best of my knowledge, everyone participating in this discussion has read the QPL. I most certainly have, and I know several others have. Feel free to rebut the arguments of others, but please do not call people ignorant or accuse them of not reading the license. >>The question of whether the QPL is free appears to have firm consensus >>from everyone involved in the debate, instead of standing on the >>sidelines and screaming. > > A, a consensus is one where there is no discordant voice, right ? Consensus is stronger than a simple majority, but it does not necessarily unanimous consensus. >>The question of what to *do* about that -- ask upstream authors to >>change their licenses, or modify the DFSG to make this issue explicit. > > Bah, sure, i would do that immediately, if i would be given valable arguments. > Like that i would not only be ashamed to inform my upstream about this issue, > and thus show that debian follows a bunch of uninformed people in their > conclusions, i would be lying to them about this consensus issue, and also > lowering my future relationship with them over real issues. It is difficult to consider the possible avenues by which a licensor may abuse a license, when you have a particular licensor in mind
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Because he doesn't just want to distribute them to the rest of the > world. He also wants to turn them into a proprietary product and sell > them! The BSD license is "fair" (a term invented for use here): it > offers lots of permission, and asks nothing. It's more generous than > "fair". The GPL is "fair": it offers many permissions, but some of > them can only be exercised if you pass the same permissions on to > others. That is, it's a copyleft. But it's probably the most > restrictive you can be and still be "fair". > > The QPL isn't even close to that line of "fair"ness: It is a copyleft > which requires that even more permissions be granted to the initial > author. I get some rights to the initial author's code, but he > insists that I give him not only the same rights to my code (which > would be a "fair" copyleft), but much more. > > I don't think this idea of "fair"ness is explicit in the DFSG right > now, but it's an important component of Freedom. It's also a superset > of DFSG 1. In some ways, it's implied by DFSG 1, but it could be made > more clear. I think it's possible to write this in a couple ways -- > concentrating on the symmetry, or on the lack of demands on the > licensee. Does anybody have strong feelings as to which way is more fruitful? Just a note: I think the requirement to give the original author a more permissive license is OK, just obnoxious. The only part I have a problem with is the requirement to distribute your changes to the original author on request, and I would have a problem with that even if the original author could only use those changes under the QPL. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: PGP signature signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Free Debian logos?
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > We allow others to specify that if their work is modified, the > modifier must change the name. We try to narrowly tailor such clauses > when they're proposed, but we do allow it. The logo is Debian's name > -- just not in English. It represents Debian just as much as the > word "Debian" does. So even by a copyright license, we'd allow others > to insist that their names or logos are changed. Insisting that the top-level name of your product be changed is one thing. Insisting that modifiers hunt down every reference to a logo and replace it is quite another. (Also, note the difference between the requirement to change a project name, which is free, and the requirement to change a file name, which is not. Recall the LPPL discussions.) > Alternately to issuing a license to use the trademark for > non-confusing purposes, Debian could issue no trademark license at > all. In that case, either Debian would lose its trademark rights, or > it would have to enforce the default trademark rights against those > who used the logo. Neither is free. The proposed license, I think, > is as free as you can make a trademark license. Remember that some > sorts of trademark license can cost the owner the trademark. I don't > think we want to push Debian or others towards those. First of all, "as free as you can make a trademark license" does not automatically equate to "DFSG-Free". Second, I think my suggested trademark license does include some restrictions on confusing uses: either refer to Debian or Debian products (or unofficial products clearly marked as such), or note that your logo is based on the Debian logo. This removes the possibility that someone could use the logo as the logo for another company with no reference to Debian. It is possible to license the use of a trademark to others without losing that trademark; Debian would simply be licensing it to _many_ others. > As to your proposed license: > >>* You may use modified versions of the logo under any of these >>circumstances, if you clearly and unambiguously identify the origin >>of the logo as being the Debian logo, and satisfy the requirements >>for using the unmodified logo above. > > I don't think that's Free. It may just be as un-free as a patch > clause, and so DFSG-free. But it means I can't make a new logo, no > matter how different, which includes a modified copy of the Debian > logo, no matter how distinct. Sure you can. You just need to note somewhere that your logo is based on the Debian logo, and not use the logo to imply false endorsement by or affiliation with Debian. That seems perfectly free to me. > I do think that "clearly and unambiguously" are either strict enough > to be non-free, or lawyer-bombs if it's argued that there's latitude > there. Does that require a message in the image? In multiple > languages? What I had in mind was not necessarily a message in the image, but more likely a brief footnote wherever the logo is used, or on a website, perhaps a single note with links from wherever the logo is used. Regardless, I don't want to be much more specific, because I think a requirement that tells you exactly what to say or how to say it would be non-free. Not everything that requires human judgement is a "lawyer-bomb". The wording "clearly and unambiguously" actually comes from the new, Free LPPL. > Also, you probably mean "imply any *false* endorsement *by* or > affiliation with Debian" Good point. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: GPL-compatible, copyleft documentation license
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:26:52 -0500 Branden Robinson wrote: > > > If you're selling the hard copies then you can probably afford to > > > include a CD. > > > > I don't think there are affordable self-publishing deals that also > > include CD production, but I could be wrong. > > Keep in mind that it's not exactly challenging to represent (X)HTML > and CSS on paper, given that they're plain text. Wait, I would think that this cannot satisfy GPL#3a: | a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable | source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections | 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software | interchange; Source code printed on paper would not be machine-readable (unless you use an OCR, but that sounds like a weak argument...). Moreover paper does not seem to be a "medium customarily used for software interchange". -- | GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | $ fortune Francesco |Key fingerprint = | Q: What is purple Poli| C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | and commutes? | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | A: A boolean grape. pgp90UW5eeifh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:06:25 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:56:50AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Under the GPL, the government can just pass a law requiring > > > >> that all distributed source code be provided to the government. [...] > > In that country, it would not be free. > > I disagree. This is not relevant to the freedom of the license, > because it's an additional restriction imposed by a *third party* (in > this case, a government), and not something that can be fixed by > additional permission grants from the licensor. Indeed. For a license to be free, it is necessary that the *license* grants all the important rights and does not take away any right. If another entity nukes one important right, it's not the license's fault... Consider a totalitarian regime in which anyone can be put in prison with no reason: would free licenses become non-free in this country? I don't think so. -- | GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | $ fortune Francesco |Key fingerprint = | Q: What is purple Poli| C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | and commutes? | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | A: A boolean grape. pgpr6l7qPV8fD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>I would agree entirely with that assessment. I personally only have a >>problem with the forced distribution clause, and not the all-permissive >>license to the original developer. I think the requirement for an >>all-permissive license is obnoxious, but still Free. > > If it were only an all-permissive license contingent on distribution > *to that person*, that would be fine. The compulsive license even if > that person doesn't have a copy is not Free. > > For example, let's say I give some software under the QPL to Alice. I > also give it under the GPL to Bob. Alice doesn't propagate hers, and > tells me this. Bob does propagate his. It gets back to the initial > developer, INRIA. Now INRIA has my code, with a permissive license I > didn't want to give them! Agreed. It is only acceptable for the permissive license to apply if the developer receives the code through one or more voluntary distributions starting from you, all under the QPL (or whatever license the original developer used). - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:32:15 +0100, Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Extraordinarily poorly formatted post] Bugger, bugger, bugger. Sorry about the atrocious layout. I'm sure it's pretty obvious, but just in case not: everything after the first paragraph shouldn't have been there. -- Andrew Saunders
Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:56:06 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And i can't take you seriously as long as people like Brian are allowed to > participate in this discussion which such low-quality contributions. What's this part all about? If his posts really bother you that much and you don't want to read what he writes, add him to your killfile. The only reason I could see you wanting to ban him from the list altogether is if you're afraid that others won't agree that his contributions are of such low quality after all, and thus you want to gag him instead of attempting to rebut his arguments. -- Andrew Saunders Apart from the fact that he clearly has made a lot of valuable contributions to this list in the past, I think advocating banning him from posting is an extreme overreaction. > > > Friendly, > > > > Please try harder. > > And you, do you try to be reasonable ? you only defend Brian because he is a > long timer here, and one of your crow of time-loser who discuss things in > round without even bothering to provide serious advice. What do i gain to > participate here, only hours of lost time. I feel like i will provide my > analysis in the debian copyright file of the ocaml package, and discuss this > directly with the ftp-masters, or the RM. There is absolutely no credibility > left here as long as such bullshit is allowed. > > And yes, if i sound pissed, i am. It is now almost one week since this > bullshit started, and we haven't advanced one bit, and you are all so imbued > with your righteouness that you don't even bother reading the licence you are > criticing, nor the comment that don't agree with you. > > Friendly, still, > > > > Sven Luther > > > > Regards, > > Walter Landry > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:34:35PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:43PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:08:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > > > > On 2004-07-21 13:48:58 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Please don't bother writing to me again. [...] > > > > > > > > > > Sven, you need rough consensus that ocaml follows the DFSG. If you > > > > > move to kill this discussion now by spamming the list with notices > > > > > not > > > > > > > > No, i move to kill Brian's participation in it. He is only sputting > > > > uniformed bullshit, and is losing my time. I won't have anything to > > > > do with him anymore, and i question the legitimity of any > > > > debian-legal conslusion in which he participated. > > > > > > At least Brian is friendly. > > > > Well, sure, but full of bullshit and making extravagant claims, even > > if the response to those was given a few mails earlier in the > > thread. He also refuses to do his homework, and thus only > > participates in lengthening the discussion process and reaching no > > solution. I don't see why he should participate, since he clearly > > has no legal clue, refuses to get advice, and ignores the advice i > > got, refuse to read the mails posted in this thread, or fails to > > understand them. > > I feel Brian has been a good citizen of debian-legal. He makes > reasonable arguments, and does not devolve into ad hominem attacks on > people who disagree. The post you referenced about the compiler > interjecting parts of itself into the result was not an unreasonable > question to ask. It may turn out to be inapplicable in this case, but > it was not an unreasonable question to ask. Well, the real problem is that i answered about this, and even provided that link here previously, and he still made that argument. This means he is clearly not reading the information provided here, so i don't really see what interest there is in allowing him to continue contributing if he doesn't even bother to read the material previously posted here. This will only result in circular arguing, especially if he makes suppositions which are obviously wrong. And i _DID_ read all the hundreds of mails about chinese dissident before posting directly here, so he could do the same, could he not ? > > In any of these cases, unless he makes his homework before making > > extravagant claims, he is only loosing everyones time, and delaying > > the resolution of this issue consequently. > > > > Also he self claimed he has a vested interest in this, and it is not clear > > that he would accept a minor modification for making the ocaml licence free, > > since he is after making proprietary modification of the ocaml code base. > > > > And to end it all, it is he who dragged me in this mess. > > He reported a bug based on the consensus of debian-legal. It was only Consensus ? I didn't see such, only rambling about chinese dissidents. > after the bug was reported that we saw you (Sven) and Matthew Garrett > argue against that consensus (I think those are the only ones. There > are an awful lot of messages in the thread). While Matthew has always And i did read them _ALL_, which Brian didn't do. > given up reasonable arguments trying to elucidate the basis for > arguments, your arguments have been vituperative and full of derision. Sure, and it is a measure of my lack of thrust of the consensus that may be agreed upon here. It is clear that many of the past posts where circular rambling about desert island and chinese dissidents, and didn't achieve anything, and then you claim to have consensus to claim the QPL is non-free ? Let me laugh. And you may all enjoy all this nonsense that is going on here, but i _DON'T_, and don't feel happy at all about all the time i have already lost here, but i fear that with people like Brian it is for nothing, since they don't bother reading my arguments or discard them, in order to follow they own vested interest or simply for pleasure. > > So, if i am going to accept the resolution of debian-legal and go upstream > > with it, i don't want to see him participating. If he want, he can start > > another Brian-bullshit only thread with all those of you who want to lose > > their time and do circular discussion about chinese dissident and Brian's > > right to do proprietary modification, but i don't want to have anything to > > do > > with it, and i don't consider it binding as far as the ocaml package is > > related. > > You'll have to go somewhere else. Brian has acquitted himself well on > this list, and I see no reason to exclude him from it. Well, not on this thread. Sorry. But then, if you consider that the kind of bullshit he has been claiming, and the total lack of respect for the opposite view he shows in not even reading those counter-arguments
An old question of EGE's
Last year, Edmund Grimley Evans wrote: > Suppose we have: > > licence A that forces you to release modifications under a > BSD-licence to the whole world > > licence B that forces you to release modifications under a > BSD-licence to the original authors and a GPL-licence to the whole > world > > licence C that forces you to release modifications under a > GPL-licence to the whole world > > Then licence A gives fewer permissions than licence B, and licence B > gives fewer permissions than licence C. If you dual-license > something under A and B that's the same as licensing it under B > (because licence B doesn't stop you from also BSD-licensing your > modifications to the whole world), and if you dual-license something > under B and C that's the same as licensing it under C (because > licence C doesn't stop you from also BSD-licensing your > modifications to the original authors). > > You seem to be saying that A and C are DFSG-free, but B isn't. So > something released with license A is free, but software > dual-licensed with A and B is non-free. I seem to be seeing or > imagining some kind of paradox here ... I'm not convinced that either A or C are free, but for the purposes of this thread I'm willing to temporarily assume so. But I'm going to rephrase Edmund's B to make something clear: * license B' that forces you to release modifications under a BSD license to the original authors and forces you to release modifications under a GPL-license to the whole world. You can't release your changes under a copyleft to the original author. I don't know of any Free license which claims to forbid me from using a copyleft, not even the BSD Protection License (discussed around the same time the parent of this message was posted, and available at http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/work/colin.percival/source/BSDPL.html ). The BSD Protection License is *probably* free, if awkwardly phrased and unfortunate in intent. It is basically a BSD copyleft, in that it preserves everybody's right to take software proprietary, and prohibits contamination from copylefts like the GPL. So there you can release your software to the original author under the same terms you received it from him -- he can take it proprietary, or he can distribute under the BSDPL. But even he can't then combine your work with something he has under the GPL. The idea from DFSG 3 that modifications must be able to be "distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software" seems to be an important component of Freedom. I really do think, on consideration, that this means the actual license I had, not a big document listing all of the licenses I might get if I paid the author or became a teacher or ceased to operate nuclear power plants. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 10:09:49PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:24:40PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:58:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > >> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > >> >Of course, XXX = "you must distribute source, too" is also a > > >> >restriction. > > >> >Again, guidelines. (If the complaint is that these guidelines can't be > > >> >used without interaction with Debian and having the same result, then > > >> >it's > > >> >just a complaint that they're guidelines--this can't be "fixed" without > > >> >turning it into something other than guidelines.) > > >> > > >> I would argue against any assertion that there's strong consensus that > > >> "distribute to upstream authors" is a "worse" restriction than > > >> "distribute source too". > > > > > >I'll certainly throw my hat in in favour of "to upstream" being worse than > > >"source if binaries". Firstly, there's an "advancing freedom" argument -- > > >ensuring recipients have source code (if they want it) has a great > > >practical > > >advantage to freedom. I hope you agree with that (if not, we have more > > >fundamental disagreements than this small matter). > > > > > >Next, there's the issue of cost -- presumably it is of trivial cost (or > > >even > > >profitable) to me to distribute to my recipient, because otherwise I > > >wouldn't be doing it. It's unlikely that distributing source alongside the > > >binaries will significantly increase that cost -- and the GPL (the most > > >common example of this form of distribution) specifically allows the > > >recouping of distribution costs for source. However, it may not be a > > >trivial cost to distribute changes back to the original author -- in cases > > >previously hypothesised, it may even be illegal. It is also unlikely to be > > >trivial to determine what cost I may incur in sending the changes back > > >upstream at the time I decide to exercise my granted permissions. > > > > Bullshit, as any thread BRian participated in seems to be anyway. > > > > You obviously could not be bothered to read QPL 6a, which covers > > distribution > > You appear almost incapable of making an argument without throwing in a > little personal attack as well. Stick to the argument, and leave the ad > hominems out of it. I'll put you on notice here and now that if you Well, i already said this 2-3 times, and i see this coming back. And i don't want to have anything to do with Brian anymore about this issue. If at least he did the work to know what he speaks about it would be worth it, but this is not the case. > continue in this way, I will stop responding to your "arguments" and leave > you to your own frothing. Sure, whatever, it is not me who has problems with the ocaml licence anyway, and this whole discussion is going nowhere anyway, if i have to redo the same arguments every time. > > of stuff back to upstream. Not only are you free to chose the licence, but > > furthermore, it clearly states : > > > > a. You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable > > forms of these items are also able to receive and use the > > complete machine-readable source code to the items without > > any charge beyond the costs of data transfer. > > > > So if there is any non-negligible cost involved in answering that upstream > > request, you are free to charge it to upstream. > > I don't see how 6a relates to 6c in any real fashion. 6c is not a subclause > of 6a, so there isn't any relationship there. 6a starts by talking about > "recipients of machine-executable forms", which presumably the upstream > author wouldn't really be, since upstream is interested in the source and > not the binary. Clause 6 covers what you have to do when you are distributing a work which links with QPLed libraries. 6a says you have to distribute it with source, and can charge for the data transfer, 6b says you have to give them modification and redistributioon right, in a way mostly similar to what we consider DFSG free. 6c says that if the work linking with the library is not generally available, you need to provide it to the author upon request. Since the act of providing your work to the upstream author is clearly an act of distribution, you have to do it conforming to clause 6 of the QPL, and in particular clause 6a and 6b. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: More questions about the QPL for compilers and other things
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:52:08PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > I'm think of an analogy with a certain children's toy called a spirograph. >> > You may have heard of it, or maybe not. It basically consists of a large >> > ring, with cog teeth on the inside, and several smaller cogged circles, >> > each >> > with lots of holes in it. You placed the circle in the ring and a pen in >> > one of the holes, and turned it around and around. It created beautiful >> > patterns. >> >> Yes. I know what you mean. >> >> > But it's simply the result of a mechanical process. The only copyright >> > that >> > could exist in a spirograph artwork would be the selection of circle, pen >> > hole, and pen colour -- equivalent to source code. >> >> But what if the spirograph cogs were not uniform? What if they had >> wiggly sides, and so contained the essence of some spirograph >> drawings? Those are your programs. They are copyrightable. >> >> Now imagine the outer wheel is also nonuniform, and has been >> creatively sculpted. It has an impact on the output as well. >> >> The output is just a mechanical transformation, yes -- but of the pair >> (wheel, cog). It carries copyrightable elements of both along. > > I think I see your argument. Your saying that, in the case of the compiler, > creative decisions made by the author of that compiler have affected the > end-result of the compilation effort. The compiler author's choice of > design has changed your compiled program. > > I think this could be expressed as an "affected" theory of determining > derivative works. I've heard a similar theory espoused as to why programs > are derivative works of the libraries they use -- because your creative work > wouldn't be in the form it is in if it weren't for the influence of the > library's API. In this case, the form of your compiled work is influenced > by the compiler author's design decisions. > > I understand it, but I don't think my mind is letting me truly believe it. > The problem I see it is that this argument would very easily make every work > compiled by GCC a derivative work of GCC, and hence need to be distributed > under the terms of the GPL, if it weren't for the "clarification" by the FSF > about GCC considering programs as pure input data. A similar conclusion > would also hold true of every other compiler out there -- and I can't recall > seeing licence grants over the compiler output from MSVS, only on the > runtime libraries. I see compilers -- and not just LISP compilers -- all the time, which claim to control how their output may be used. The intel compiler, for example, has an expensive license if you wish to build products for commercial sale. Metrowerks Codewarrior used to be under a similar license; I assume it still is. >> As it happens, it's not *just* the OCaml compiler which is licensed >> under the QPL. It is the byte compiler, the native-code compiler, the >> debugger, the interactive toplevel, the OCaml-specific 'lex' and >> 'yacc' tools, the linker, the documentation generator, and the camlp4 >> macro engine, pretty-printer and preprocessor. > >>From recollection, GNU bison has a large waiver over their template parser > files (bison.simple and bison.hairy) because they are copied verbatim into > the output source, and the FSF didn't want to limit use of bison to > GPL-compatible software. I don't suppose you happen to know if the > equivalent parts of the OCaml yacc have similar waivers (or are considered > part of the "runtime library" LGPL set)? They don't appear to be in the LGPL'd code, and I don't see such waivers on cursory inspection. After the last week, though, somebody *else* is going to have to ask the OCaml maintainer. I'm not interested in continuing the flood of abuse into my inbox. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: More questions about the QPL for compilers and other things
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If you're going to suggest that a compiler licence should give some > general BSD-like permission for copyrightable stuff that gets inserted > into the output, then the problem is that someone might modify the > compiler so that it outputs itself in a Quine-like fashion, so unless > you want to BSD the whole compiler you have no choice but to identify > the runtime support bits and give broader permission just for those > parts, which is what the GCC and the OCaml people seem to have done. That really isn't a risk: the original author grants a license, and nobody else can change those. If I change GCC to emit its entire source into the output, that doesn't get me unfettered rights with respect to it even given the FSF's "clarification". The items in the OCaml "runtime" are the VM, the standard library, and some other libraries. But the optimized form of tail recursion, for example, is a neat creation and doesn't come from the standard library. I really don't understand enough of the OCaml native compiler to tell for sure what this means. But when I see INRIA handing out a license that specifically mentions items which link to the compiler, I have to assume that they mean *something*, and didn't just pick a license with a giant meaningless clause. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 06:46:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Great. Please suggest an example free license with a forced upstream >> distribution clause. It may be a copyleft or not, at your choice. > > I don't have a particular one nor am I going to go hunt one down for us to > drag > this conversation out longer than it has to. I'd rather stick to the point > that > I'm trying to argue, which is solely based on forced distribution of changes > upstream. No, you don't have to find one. Just write a very, very simple one. I don't think it can be done in a free way, but if you show me one, then I'll believe you. >> I do think Sven might disagree, and have reason to be just a little >> testy that I've made spamming him a condition of distributing >> modifications to my software. If Linux were licensed that way, Debian >> would have to send one kernel source tree per download per kernel >> copyright holder to poor Sven. That would be thousands of kernel >> sources. Surely, enough to put debian.org and its mirrors into some >> unhappy territory. > > Ok, I misunderstood your question. I assumed Sven would want the changes. This > would classify as discrimination against Sven, and would fail the DFSG. > Fortunately, this is not necessarily the case with forced upstream > distribution > clauses. Why is this discrimination against him? I think that's fairly contorted, in comparison to the simplicity of saying that a Free license cannot compel me to initiate action, only to do some things in particular ways, and this compels me to initiate communication with somebody. >> And gosh, that is a problem for the mirrors: if distributing modified >> copies requires that the mods be sent to the initial author, then a >> mirror or distributor such as Debian will have to send a copy on >> *every download* even though it hasn't modified the software. > > I'm sorry, I don't understand how you got from "send mods to initial author" > to > "every download requires a corresponding mail to the initial author." Could > you > clarify? I asked if a free license could, in your view, require that any time you distribute modifications, you also send a copy to the original author. That would require sending them on *every download*. If you're a mass distribution site, that's a problem. >> >> Can I say you must do it by a non-digital mechanism? >> > This question could be asked for forced downstream source distribution as >> > well. >> > Why not? >> Because those are expensive. Real mail costs a lot more than e-mail. > > Ok then, since this would fail the fee test by my definition of the word fee. > But fortunately I've never seen a forced upstream distribution clause with > this > requirement, which would make it non-free. OK; but requiring me to use my network connection is not a fee, not even if I pay by the bit? Is there a bright line, here? Or just a vague idea that some costs are large enough to be non-free, but very small costs are not worth worrying about? >> >> Can I say you must sign your changes? >> > As above, this could be applied to downstream distribution. Why not, given >> > the >> > DFSG? (The dictator test obviously would apply, but I don't know if I agree >> > with it as a functional tool) >> Because it compels me to reveal my identity to distribute changes, >> which is a cost. > > I don't consider this a valid argument. You reveal your identity distributing > changes downstream as well. No I don't. I can drop CDs in the street, or paint code on walls. > Furthermore, nowhere in the DFSG is privacy guaranteed (and I won't > accept discrimination as a valid reason for this because the license > is not written with the intent to discriminate against people who > need to keep their identity secret). > >> >> Can I require a license from you? More free than otherwise compelled >> >> by the copyleft? What about a non-free license, can I require that? >> > No, because this obviously fails DFSG 7. >> No it doesn't. My license passes on to them. It's just that your >> changes have to be under a more or less restrictive license. Ah, you >> mean DFSG 3. > > No, I meant 7, but 3 applies as well, thanks for clarifying for me. I don't see how requiring that you license your material under a more or less free license than I used when giving the material to you fails DFSG 7. Can you explain that to me in more detail? >> >> It's not just that I think these are hard questions. It's that I >> >> think many of them have no free answer. That makes me think that the >> >> question which opens this can of worms -- forced distribution -- is >> >> probably non-free. >> > I don't think it opens any can of worms greater than the one we've already >> > opened by allowing copyleft. >> OK. I look forward to a proposal for a free license which requires >> changes be sent to the upstream author. > > Please don't make me propose some fantasy license so we
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 2)
Evan Prodromou wrote: Below is a second version of the summary of the Creative Commons 2.0 licenses. The summary is also available here: http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.txt http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html ~ESP
Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 06:46:32PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Great. Please suggest an example free license with a forced upstream > distribution clause. It may be a copyleft or not, at your choice. I don't have a particular one nor am I going to go hunt one down for us to drag this conversation out longer than it has to. I'd rather stick to the point that I'm trying to argue, which is solely based on forced distribution of changes upstream. > I do think Sven might disagree, and have reason to be just a little > testy that I've made spamming him a condition of distributing > modifications to my software. If Linux were licensed that way, Debian > would have to send one kernel source tree per download per kernel > copyright holder to poor Sven. That would be thousands of kernel > sources. Surely, enough to put debian.org and its mirrors into some > unhappy territory. Ok, I misunderstood your question. I assumed Sven would want the changes. This would classify as discrimination against Sven, and would fail the DFSG. Fortunately, this is not necessarily the case with forced upstream distribution clauses. > And gosh, that is a problem for the mirrors: if distributing modified > copies requires that the mods be sent to the initial author, then a > mirror or distributor such as Debian will have to send a copy on > *every download* even though it hasn't modified the software. I'm sorry, I don't understand how you got from "send mods to initial author" to "every download requires a corresponding mail to the initial author." Could you clarify? > >> Can I say you must do it by a non-digital mechanism? > > This question could be asked for forced downstream source distribution as > > well. > > Why not? > Because those are expensive. Real mail costs a lot more than e-mail. Ok then, since this would fail the fee test by my definition of the word fee. But fortunately I've never seen a forced upstream distribution clause with this requirement, which would make it non-free. > >> Can I say you must sign your changes? > > As above, this could be applied to downstream distribution. Why not, given > > the > > DFSG? (The dictator test obviously would apply, but I don't know if I agree > > with it as a functional tool) > Because it compels me to reveal my identity to distribute changes, > which is a cost. I don't consider this a valid argument. You reveal your identity distributing changes downstream as well. Furthermore, nowhere in the DFSG is privacy guaranteed (and I won't accept discrimination as a valid reason for this because the license is not written with the intent to discriminate against people who need to keep their identity secret). > >> Can I require a license from you? More free than otherwise compelled > >> by the copyleft? What about a non-free license, can I require that? > > No, because this obviously fails DFSG 7. > No it doesn't. My license passes on to them. It's just that your > changes have to be under a more or less restrictive license. Ah, you > mean DFSG 3. No, I meant 7, but 3 applies as well, thanks for clarifying for me. > >> It's not just that I think these are hard questions. It's that I > >> think many of them have no free answer. That makes me think that the > >> question which opens this can of worms -- forced distribution -- is > >> probably non-free. > > I don't think it opens any can of worms greater than the one we've already > > opened by allowing copyleft. > OK. I look forward to a proposal for a free license which requires > changes be sent to the upstream author. Please don't make me propose some fantasy license so we can go through these arguments all over again. I'm not here to argue for the sake of arguing, so please don't ask me to do so. So far you've constructed a bunch of extringent requirements that would make forced upstream distribution of modifications non-free, but I've seen nothing that convinces me that the basic concept is universally non-free. I don't believe that forced upstream distribution is necessarily free mind you, just that the extringent requirements in the actual license need to be taken in to account, which is what I meant by "level of detail" in an earlier mail. Ultimately, I think the Desert Island Test needs refinement, because as it is, it strikes me as rather crude. - David Nusinow
Re: request-tracker3: licence problem
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > However, I note an interesting problem: The maintainer will not be > able to send patches sent to the BTS upstream, as he is not the > copyright holder for those contributions. I'm not certain most bug-fix patches are copyrightable -- for example, if an author has typed "if (x = 0) ..." and I fix that to "if (0 == x) ..." then I haven't really contributed anything creative, and I don't think I own any copyright in the result. For larger patches, which really do have creative content, this could be a serious problem. I imagine that BP would be interested to talk about this, since sacrificing user bug reports is a serious cost. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness
> > Unless -- we want to assert that all GPL-derived licenses used in > > Debian must be GPL-compatible. [...] On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:27:10AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Since the question is raised, I do not agree with making that assertion > and I do not believe it to be the consensus of this list. However, it's probably worth noting that there's a big difference between [a] using the GPL verbatim and providing some additional license, and [b] using some other license which happens to include terms from the GPL. This thread was based on an instance of [a]. [When this thread started, that instance was non-distributable because of a silly mistake. It has since been fixed.] I would hope that this is obvious -- we'd have serious problems if it were not. -- Raul
Re: request-tracker3: licence problem
On Jul 13, 2004, at 05:49, Andrew Stribblehill wrote: | By intentionally submitting any modifications, corrections or | derivatives to this work, or any other work intended for use with Request | Tracker, to Best Practical Solutions, LLC, you confirm that you are the | copyright holder for those contributions and you grant Best Practical | Solutions, LLC a nonexclusive, worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free, | perpetual, license to use, copy, create derivative works based on those | contributions, and sublicense and distribute those contributions and | any derivatives thereof. Looks DFSG-free to me. However, I note an interesting problem: The maintainer will not be able to send patches sent to the BTS upstream, as he is not the copyright holder for those contributions.
Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness
On Jul 19, 2004, at 13:40, Branden Robinson wrote: Provided the additional restriction did not fail the DFSG in and of itself, I don't see why such a license necessarily would fail the DFSG. We'd have to judge this sort of situation on a case by base basis. Unless -- we want to assert that all GPL-derived licenses used in Debian must be GPL-compatible. [...] If that's the consensus view of this mailing list, I can go along with it, [...] Since the question is raised, I do not agree with making that assertion and I do not believe it to be the consensus of this list. For example, if I were to make a new license, the Really Silly General Public License, following the procedure in the GPL FAQ, adding this term: If the program contains functionality designed to display its own name to the user then you must cause your modified version to display a different name unless you sacrifice a pig to Cthulhu. it'd still be a free (though GPL-incompatible and silly) license. (Free because DFSG allows a license to require a rename; silly for obvious reasons)
Re: Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:24:40PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:58:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> >Of course, XXX = "you must distribute source, too" is also a restriction. > >> >Again, guidelines. (If the complaint is that these guidelines can't be > >> >used without interaction with Debian and having the same result, then it's > >> >just a complaint that they're guidelines--this can't be "fixed" without > >> >turning it into something other than guidelines.) > >> > >> I would argue against any assertion that there's strong consensus that > >> "distribute to upstream authors" is a "worse" restriction than > >> "distribute source too". > > > >I'll certainly throw my hat in in favour of "to upstream" being worse than > >"source if binaries". Firstly, there's an "advancing freedom" argument -- > >ensuring recipients have source code (if they want it) has a great practical > >advantage to freedom. I hope you agree with that (if not, we have more > >fundamental disagreements than this small matter). > > > >Next, there's the issue of cost -- presumably it is of trivial cost (or even > >profitable) to me to distribute to my recipient, because otherwise I > >wouldn't be doing it. It's unlikely that distributing source alongside the > >binaries will significantly increase that cost -- and the GPL (the most > >common example of this form of distribution) specifically allows the > >recouping of distribution costs for source. However, it may not be a > >trivial cost to distribute changes back to the original author -- in cases > >previously hypothesised, it may even be illegal. It is also unlikely to be > >trivial to determine what cost I may incur in sending the changes back > >upstream at the time I decide to exercise my granted permissions. > > Bullshit, as any thread BRian participated in seems to be anyway. > > You obviously could not be bothered to read QPL 6a, which covers distribution You appear almost incapable of making an argument without throwing in a little personal attack as well. Stick to the argument, and leave the ad hominems out of it. I'll put you on notice here and now that if you continue in this way, I will stop responding to your "arguments" and leave you to your own frothing. > of stuff back to upstream. Not only are you free to chose the licence, but > furthermore, it clearly states : > > a. You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable > forms of these items are also able to receive and use the >complete machine-readable source code to the items without >any charge beyond the costs of data transfer. > > So if there is any non-negligible cost involved in answering that upstream > request, you are free to charge it to upstream. I don't see how 6a relates to 6c in any real fashion. 6c is not a subclause of 6a, so there isn't any relationship there. 6a starts by talking about "recipients of machine-executable forms", which presumably the upstream author wouldn't really be, since upstream is interested in the source and not the binary. - Matt
Re: Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
> > #index top up prev next > > ___ > > [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] > > Re: Summary : > ocaml, QPL and the DFSG. > > ___ > > * To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org > * Subject: Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG. > * From: Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:21:25 +1000 > * In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * Mail-followup-to: debian-legal@lists.debian.org > * Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * Old-return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i > > ___ > >On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:58:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >Of course, XXX = "you must distribute source, too" is also a restriction. >> >Again, guidelines. (If the complaint is that these guidelines can't be >> >used without interaction with Debian and having the same result, then it's >> >just a complaint that they're guidelines--this can't be "fixed" without >> >turning it into something other than guidelines.) >> >> I would argue against any assertion that there's strong consensus that >> "distribute to upstream authors" is a "worse" restriction than >> "distribute source too". > >I'll certainly throw my hat in in favour of "to upstream" being worse than >"source if binaries". Firstly, there's an "advancing freedom" argument -- >ensuring recipients have source code (if they want it) has a great practical >advantage to freedom. I hope you agree with that (if not, we have more >fundamental disagreements than this small matter). > >Next, there's the issue of cost -- presumably it is of trivial cost (or even >profitable) to me to distribute to my recipient, because otherwise I >wouldn't be doing it. It's unlikely that distributing source alongside the >binaries will significantly increase that cost -- and the GPL (the most >common example of this form of distribution) specifically allows the >recouping of distribution costs for source. However, it may not be a >trivial cost to distribute changes back to the original author -- in cases >previously hypothesised, it may even be illegal. It is also unlikely to be >trivial to determine what cost I may incur in sending the changes back >upstream at the time I decide to exercise my granted permissions. Bullshit, as any thread BRian participated in seems to be anyway. You obviously could not be bothered to read QPL 6a, which covers distribution of stuff back to upstream. Not only are you free to chose the licence, but furthermore, it clearly states : a. You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable forms of these items are also able to receive and use the complete machine-readable source code to the items without any charge beyond the costs of data transfer. So if there is any non-negligible cost involved in answering that upstream request, you are free to charge it to upstream. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG.
> > #index top up prev next > > ___ > > [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] > > Re: Summary : > ocaml, QPL and the DFSG. > > ___ > > * To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org > * Subject: Re: Summary : ocaml, QPL and the DFSG. > * From: Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:46:32 -0400 > * In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (David Nusinow'smessage of "Wed, 21 > Jul 2004 17:11:39 -0400") > * Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * Old-return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL > PROTECTED] > n.net><[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL > PROTECTED] > e.verizon.net> > * User-agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) > > ___ > >David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> Additionally, I cannot conceive of any way of doing this in a free way >>> -- even if forced distribution to upstream on distribution of >>> modifications is accepted as free. Can I say that you must send me >>> modifications to the software I write every time you distribute? So >>> on every download, fling another one my way? Can I say you must send >>> them addressed to me at Sven Luther's address? >> >> I don't see any conflict with either of these questions and the DFSG. > >Great. Please suggest an example free license with a forced upstream >distribution clause. It may be a copyleft or not, at your choice. Brian, i ask you to not use again my name in your post, nor to participate in this thread about this. I will consider any conclusion you have participated in as void and not binding, as you are obviously clueless, and you vested interest in producing proprietary versions of the ocaml compiler suite clearly makes your participation here suspect and your intent to delay the real work by muddying the water is not welcome. Please go and modify your scheme compiler, and stop bothering everyone here, and in particular stop using my name for it. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 2)
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:21:17AM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote: > But in evaluating licenses, we have to assume that the Licensor is not > good, generous, or rational. If we can convince ourselves that the license > grants the licensees freedom _even_when_ the Licensor is possessed by > Captain Howdy and starts spewing green goo out of their eye sockets, then > we can be reasonably certain that works released under the license are > really Free. > > Unfortunately, taking this tack makes us look like mean and vituperative > a-holes. The word is "lawyers". They'd do exactly the same thing, for the same reasons, if this were a proper license being negotiated by two parties, rather than one party trying to stuff a vague and open-ended document down the collective throat of the world. > So, if Programmer Joe really wrote a program and made the documentation > available under the by 2.0, and I created a modified version and wrote in > the modified documentation: > > Programmer Joe's version of this algorithm ran in O(N^2) time, but > our > new version runs in O(NlogN) time. > > ...then, as the license is written now, Joe could request that I remove his > name from this sentence. > > Now, is this earthshatteringly bad? Not really. We could obviously work > around it, and program documentation that leaves out reference to the > original version and its authors would probably be more or less usable. > > But opinion here seems to lean to the side that letting Licensors have this > level of editorial control over modified versions of a document makes that > document non-free. Notably it fails the smoke test: this clause prohibits us from including the work in Debian, since we cannot realistically satisfy this requirement. That means it's got to be non-free. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ocaml & QPL : Clause 3b in question now.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:43PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:08:22PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > > On 2004-07-21 13:48:58 +0100 Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >Please don't bother writing to me again. [...] > > > > > > Sven, you need rough consensus that ocaml follows the DFSG. If you > > > move to kill this discussion now by spamming the list with notices not > > > > No, i move to kill Brian's participation in it. He is only sputting > > uniformed bullshit, and is losing my time. I won't have anything to > > do with him anymore, and i question the legitimity of any > > debian-legal conslusion in which he participated. > > At least Brian is friendly. Well, sure, but full of bullshit and making extravagant claims, even if the response to those was given a few mails earlier in the thread. He also refuses to do his homework, and thus only participates in lengthening the discussion process and reaching no solution. I don't see why he should participate, since he clearly has no legal clue, refuses to get advice, and ignores the advice i got, refuse to read the mails posted in this thread, or fails to understand them. In any of these cases, unless he makes his homework before making extravagant claims, he is only loosing everyones time, and delaying the resolution of this issue consequently. Also he self claimed he has a vested interest in this, and it is not clear that he would accept a minor modification for making the ocaml licence free, since he is after making proprietary modification of the ocaml code base. And to end it all, it is he who dragged me in this mess. So, if i am going to accept the resolution of debian-legal and go upstream with it, i don't want to see him participating. If he want, he can start another Brian-bullshit only thread with all those of you who want to lose their time and do circular discussion about chinese dissident and Brian's right to do proprietary modification, but i don't want to have anything to do with it, and i don't consider it binding as far as the ocaml package is related. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:56:50AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Under the GPL, the government can just pass a law requiring that all > > >> distributed source code be provided to the government. > > >Except that there are no such governments. Get back to me when that > > >actually happens. > > If there were such a government, would you question the GPL's freedom? > In that country, it would not be free. I disagree. This is not relevant to the freedom of the license, because it's an additional restriction imposed by a *third party* (in this case, a government), and not something that can be fixed by additional permission grants from the licensor. Free software licensing presupposes that the copyright holder has the ability to grant you certain freedoms over the code. When this is not the case due to outside forces (e.g., patent holders or averse governments), we should not view this as a flaw in the license if this license gives us the *author's* permission to exercise those freedoms with the code. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 2)
Sean Kellogg wrote: reading this Draft Summary really set me off. I'm sincerely sorry about that. Let me point out that I was originally extremely hostile to most of the objections posited to the Attribution 1.0 license, most of which are replicated in this draft summary: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2004-June/000913.html But I really think debian-legal needs to rethink some of the absolutest positions it takes and recognize the law is not like software... it will never be perfect... it is an art of compromise. I advise against letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. I think the key problem here is that we're taking the most pessimistic possible view where there are ambiguities in the license text or where the text is vague and unclear. Personally, I believe that the people who work on Creative Commons are good, smart, and dedicated people. I think that folks who use CC licenses are generous and express great good will by sharing their creative fruits with the world. But in evaluating licenses, we have to assume that the Licensor is not good, generous, or rational. If we can convince ourselves that the license grants the licensees freedom _even_when_ the Licensor is possessed by Captain Howdy and starts spewing green goo out of their eye sockets, then we can be reasonably certain that works released under the license are really Free. Unfortunately, taking this tack makes us look like mean and vituperative a-holes. We treat Licensors -- people who are unselfishly sharing their work with the world -- like insane megalomaniacs. It's sucky, but it's a necessary part of the process. A more specific example for Debian would be a programmer who creates documentation licensed under Attribution 2.0. He could require that references in derived versions to design or implementation decisions he made for the program be removed. Are you saying the Attribution License is non-DSFG because the original author can say "take my name out of the derived work"??? Yes. If the Licensor can severely limit the content of modified versions, then the work isn't free, per DFSG 3. If you design a program and then say, this was designed by Programmer Joe, and Programmer Joe, embarressed by the program, says he wants his name taken out, the court will order you to take away the attribution. It is against the law to say someone did something if they did not. Yes. It's illegal to defame someone by saying something untrue about them. However, the clause doesn't say that the licensor can request that you take out untrue references. It says that the licensor can request that you take out _any_ references to them, true or not. So, if Programmer Joe really wrote a program and made the documentation available under the by 2.0, and I created a modified version and wrote in the modified documentation: Programmer Joe's version of this algorithm ran in O(N^2) time, but our new version runs in O(NlogN) time. ...then, as the license is written now, Joe could request that I remove his name from this sentence. Now, is this earthshatteringly bad? Not really. We could obviously work around it, and program documentation that leaves out reference to the original version and its authors would probably be more or less usable. But opinion here seems to lean to the side that letting Licensors have this level of editorial control over modified versions of a document makes that document non-free. "comparable authorship credit" This could mean either "credit for comparable authorship" or "comparable credit for authorship". Its amazing how adding words to a phrase changes its meaning, even more so when changing the order. "Comparable Authorship Credit" looks/sounds/means nothing like "comparable credit for authorship"... come on, the words are switched around and there is a "for" added. That's to make it more clear that there are two different ways to read the phrase. It might be easier to see the difference with parentheses, like in a C program: "(comparable authorship) credit" versus "comparable (authorship credit)". > Read it the way that make sense. Both make syntactic sense. One way is excessively burdensome, and the other is not. We have to be pessimistic here. "These restrictions make excessive demands on both licensor and licensee, and abridge their fair use rights to the Creative Commons trademarks." Cute, but untrue. A trademark is not a copyright... and Fair Use rights are significantly less with a trademark over a copyright. That's debatable. However, the key point is that I can use the name "Creative Commons" right now to talk about the Creative Commons organization without getting their explicit permission. According to the trademark clause, as stated, I could not, if I were a licensor or licensee. Let's be serious for just a moment... do you really believe that Prof. Lessig is goi
Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Under the GPL, the government can just pass a law requiring that all > >> distributed source code be provided to the government. > > > >Except that there are no such governments. Get back to me when that > >actually happens. > > If there were such a government, would you question the GPL's freedom? In that country, it would not be free. If enough of these governments that prohibit source were to pile up, then I would reconsider the freeness of the GPL. As a side note, I have to admit that some of this kind of thing already happens. Doom is not free in Brazil, and crypto didn't use to be free in France (and still isn't in the US, I would argue). > >> The dissident test isn't about dissidents, because it only applies in an > >> unrealistically narrow case. It's about privacy, and it should just say > >> that rather than bothering to mention the poor abused dissidents at all. > > > >I don't understand why you think the example is unrealistically > >narrow. I'm sure that the author of DeCSS would not be happy to have > >to make any more communications concerning DeCSS, considering the > >amount of legal harassment Jon Johansen suffered. > > The author of DeCSS has (if my recollection is correct) managed to stay > fairly anonymous despite the source being publically distributed. He'd > have nothing to fear if it had been under the QPL. Except that he might have been forced to communicate with the original authors. That communcation risks revealing his identity. As it is, he communicated _once_, well before people started looking for him. It is more difficult to covertly communicate now that everyone is looking for him. > >Phil Zimmerman might also have preferred to be a bit more anonymous. > >Moreover, the statute of limitations for what he has been charged with > >has run out, but copyright certainly hasn't. So if he had not > >complied with a software license, he could still be prosecuted for > >copyright infringement. > > People might prefer to stay anonymous. What does this have to do with > freedom? Are you saying that it would be DFSG-free for a person to have to personally identify themselves when modifying and distributing the software? Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
