Re: Bug#251983: libcwd: QPL license is non-free; package should not be in main (original) (raw)

On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 01:38:26AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:

> If this is agreed upon by everyone - then it makes sense to talk > about the choice of venue versus choise of law thing. > Provided that libcwd WILL be included in Debian, I am willing to > change the wording of the last sentence into one that only states > a choice of law, not venue. But then it must be very clear that > that is enough for making the license pass DFSG as such a change > would be irrevocable.

First of all, the Debian Project is not in a position to form a contract with you, explicit or otherwise, as to whether we will distribute any particular work as part of our operating system.

Please do not undertake any change in your licensing with the understanding that there is a binding agreement between you and the Debian Project -- e.g., you change your license, we promise to distribute your work forever.

Apart from any principled reasons we might have to avoid making such committments, as a practical matter, it would be nearly impossible for us to hold to such a promise, as we are comprised entirely of volunteers. We are not in a position to, for example, make it a condition of someone's employment that they keep libcwd packaged and fit for shipment with the next release of Debian GNU/Linux at all times.

Well, we went over it very carefully, and those two were the only problem issues we saw.

Second of all, the choice-of-law and choice-of-venue clauses were not the "only problem issues we saw".

Clause 6c[1] of the QPL fails the desert island test[2].

Clause 3b[4] of the QPL forbids free-as-in-beer modification. That is, it demands consideration from the author of modifications -- even if those modifications are distinctly copyrightable -- that are extended exclusively to the copyright holder in the QPLed work, and not to the downstream licensees of the modified version.

It is not Free to use your license to compel people to extend a license to their works to you, above and beyond the reciprocity of your license to them.

Finally, as a practical matter, the QPL is not GPL-compatible, and any library licensed under its terms is going to pose exactly the same problems to the Debian Project as KDE did[5] before the Qt library waas dual-licensed under the GPL.

When Debian began distributing KDE, that meant nothing more than that the GNU GPL was DFSG-free, not that the QPL was[6].

I would strongly encourage anyone using the QPL to dual-license their work under the GNU GPL as well. (And/or possibly the GNU LGPL, depending on the problem space their work is meant to attack.) But don't just take my word for it. Ask TrollTech:

Why does Trolltech dual-license its products?

Trolltech aims to make the best multiplatform development tool in the world. By selling a commercial license, we are able to staff a full-time dedicated development team and are able to provide first class support.

By licensing our products under open source licenses, we are also an active part of the open source community. This community has played an important role in ensuring the stability and quality of our products. Free software developers around the world actively participate in our beta testing cycle. As a result, our products reach commercial stability far more quickly (and are more thoroughly tested) than standard frameworks. We call this our Virtuous Cycle.

Additionally, the open source community provides: An extensive pool of knowledge and expertise

    Free add-on applications, libraries, components and tools (for both
    commercial and free development)

    Books and tutorials[7]

[1] 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements: [...] 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.

[2] Q: How can I tell if a license is a free software license, by Debian's standards?

A: The process involves human judgement. The DFSG is an attempt to
articulate our criteria. But the DFSG is not a contract. This means
that if you think you've found a "loophole" in the DFSG then you
don't quite understand how this works. The DFSG is a potentially
imperfect attempt to express what "freeness" in software means to
Debian. It is not something whose letter we argue about. It is not a
law. Rather, it is a set of guidelines.

That said, the DFSG is a good start. You might also consider a few
thought experiments which we often apply. But do keep in mind that
passing some set of tests is not all there is to freeness. These
tests aren't the final word either - some other tricky bit of
nonfreeness might be invented which is not covered by any of our
current tests, or something might fail a test as it's currently
worded but still be determined to be free software.

   1. The Desert Island test.

      Imagine a castaway on a desert island with a solar-powered
      computer. This would make it impossible to fulfil any
      requirement to make changes "publicly available" or to send
      patches to some particular place. This holds even if such
      requirements are only "upon request", as the castaway might be
      able to receive messages but be unable to send them. To be
      free, software must be modifiable by this unfortunate
      castaway, who must also be able to legally share modifications
      with friends on the island.[3]

[3] http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html

[4] 3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches. The following restrictions apply to modifications: [...] b. When modifications to the Software are released under this license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the initial developer of the Software to distribute your modification in future versions of the Software provided such versions remain available under these terms in addition to any other license(s) of the initial developer.

[5] http://www.debian.org/News/1998/19981008 [6] http://www.trolltech.com/newsroom/announcements/00000043.html [7] http://www.trolltech.com/company/model.html

-- G. Branden Robinson | Why should I allow that same God Debian GNU/Linux | to tell me how to raise my kids, branden@debian.org | who had to drown His own? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Green Ingersoll

Attachment:signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: