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 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'm also not arguing for its own sake, but rather to ensure that Debian distributes only Free software. I have never seen a Free license which required upstream distribution. I don't ever expect to see one, because I don't think they can exist. That is, I think *any* proposed distribution-required license will either turn out to not require distribution after all, or will turn out to be non-free for clear reasons. For example, the QPL is non-free because I can't distribute to the initial author under the same copyleft he used to distribute to me. It fails DFSG 3. It is also non-free because it compels me to retain access to anything I link to the licensed work forever, if I ever distribute it, thus imposing a fee on distribution and violating DFSG 1. > 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. I think that's a different but worthy discussion. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
