Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On 2004-07-10 00:47:24 +0100 Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> wrote:
"On request" doesn't seem to create any problems for the dissident
test.
For the request to be made, the dissident must already be known.
Nothing says it should be an individual request, or time-limited, or
anything. I'm not sure whether such requests would be kindly regarded
in court but danger UX-lawyerbomb.
Likewise, if the change author is on a desert island, I don't see how
the change author can receive any requests.
Radio? Skywriting? Even a 2-way radio would make this a PITA. Not sure
if they're allowed on the desert island. Probably depends on whether
the author listens to BBC R4.
This sort of clause is accepted as free software by the FSF, but it's
the sort of thing they've argued against in the past. I asked a few
questions about it on gnu.misc.discuss aka misc-discuss@gnu and got a
couple of replies, but they're more interested in other threads just
now.
I have some concerns about the reliance on the tests, but as long as
we can ground any failings in the DFSG rather than tests alone, I hope
they're uncontroversial.
--
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: