Now really CCing debian-legal :/ Friendly,
Sven Luther > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:44:39PM +0200, J�r�me Marant wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm back from vacation and I've just read the debian-legal archive > > where there seem to be a concensus about QPL being not DFSG-compliant. > > I didn't see any such consensus, and nobody replied to my objections. > > > Sven, could you summarize please? What about those emacs files? > > What about upstream? > > There seems to be two critics : > > 1) point 6c of the QPL fails the chinese dissident or desert island tests. > > Apart from the the dubious justification of those tests (i would much have > prefered particular DFSG points), i believe that the licence sets implicitly > the cost of data transfer to the person requiring the sources. This is > mentioned in the other points where source transfer is mentioned, but not > here, so there is a grey area. If the 6c were explicitly mentioning this, > any objection should fall by itself. Maybe the ocaml team may add such a > clarification ? > > 2) the court of venue issue. All lwasuits must be filled at Versailles. > > Well, i am no lawyer, but i hardly find this non-free, and the proponent of > making this non-free are heavily user biased, even if the removal of this > point would make it impossible for the upstream author to sue licence > breakers in far away countries, or even just in the US with the joke of a > legal system they have there. Also, i get the impression that a french court > may be much less inclined to allow bullshit claims than an US court, so this > is not really a problem. I have the feeling that any licence which means you > have to sue in the US would be even less free than that, since it means only > people with enough money to pay the lawsuit gets to have their licence > enforced, but this is only my own opinion. > > That said, i made those objections, and nobody cared to CC me their reply, if > they did reply. i am not subscribed to debian-legal, so this makes it > difficult for me to follow those huge mailing lists, without they taking the > elemental courtesy of CCing me as i asked. > > So, if there is consensus there, i seriously doubt the legitimacy of their > conclusion, and am wondering about the whole debian-legal process anyway, what > is their real power, and if they can, in case as these, reach real > conclusions, and not just achieve the goal fixed by the participants with more > time to loose. > > CCing debian-legal in hope i get a reply this time, and bringing the > conversation here too. Debian-legal folk, please don't drop the me and/or > debian-ocaml from this list. > > And to whoever who claimed it was not possible to get a list of QPLed packages > in debian, i invite you to read the grep manpage, and to run it on > /usr/share/doc/<package>/copyright. > > Friendly, > > Sven Luther > > > > TIA. > > > > -- > > J�r�me Marant > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
