Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Josh, Good summary. I think you've taken recent discussions about them
into account a bit. I've a few comments...
On 2004-07-09 22:59:18 +0100 Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net>
wrote:
* Clause 6c requires modified versions that are not distributed to the
public to be provided to the original developer on request. This
requirement fails the "Desert Island" test and the "Dissident" test
(see
sections 9a, 9b, and 12o of the DFSG FAQ at
http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html).
I think it would be better to refer to the DFSG directly if we can.
DFSG-free licenses must
allow non-distributed or privately-distributed modifications, and
cannot
require distribution to anyone, except for requiring that source be
distributed to those who receive a binary.
The wording of this seems clumsy and it's probably confusing. Better
to avoid paraphrasing the DFSG: that way lies the whisper game. I
suspect it's sufficient to state that compelled upstream distribution
of non-public mods fails to meet them.
* The license contains a "choice of venue" clause, which states that
"Disputes shall be settled by Amsterdam City Court.".
Not in the copy of the QPL I'm looking at!
If you wish to summarise the views on libcwd, please do that instead.
I think that would be more directly useful right now, even.
Since in many
legal jurisdictions, a party that fails to appear and defend
themselves
in the courts of the given jurisdiction will automatically lose such a
dispute, such "choice of venue" clauses place an undue burden on the
recipient of the software in the face of any legal action (whether
legitimate or not), and are therefore considered non-free.
"non-free by some." Or maybe many. At least I hope for a Smart Person
explaining why we're wrong on these, as they are in a couple of
painful places and I have trouble believing that Mozilla, OSI and FSF
all slept through this problem.
For software currently licensed under the QPL 1.0 whose authors desire
its inclusion in Debian, debian-legal recommends licensing that
software
under a Free Software license such as the GNU GPL, either in place of
or
as an alternative to the QPL 1.0.
Should we suggest striking 6c and the choice of venue as an acceptable
(but inconvenient thanks to source patches only, and not recommended)
alternative?
Definitely should note that Qt, the most prominent example of a
QPL-covered work, is also available under the GPL.
Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
"Before we try to work out if he's competent,
let's work out if he's conscious." (anon. exam marker)
Reply to: