Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:20:14AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:01:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Right, which indicates that we have nothing in principle against minor
> >> technical awkwardnesses.
> >
> >Patch clauses are not a "minor technical awkwardnesses"; they are a major,
> >onerous hurdle to free software development. They would be clearly and
> >obviously (to me) non-free, without the special, explicit exception in
> >DFSG#4.
>
> So why are they free? "Because DFSG #4 says so" is answering an entirely
> different question.
My opinion is that they are not, and DFSG#4 is a bug. I know that I'm
not the only person who would like to see that exception removed, though
I'm not in a position to do anything about that.
If you disagree, could you try to explain why you think it's acceptable
that a "free" license make it so extremely difficult to reuse code, and
to fork projects? (I suspect that if our opinions differ on this, we
may not be able to come to an agreement; but I'd like to try to understand
your opinion, at least.)
(I acknowledge, of course, that DFSG#4 is there and, barring an change to
the SC, binding; we're both talking about the core question of "why is
this free or not free".)
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: