luther@debian.org wrote: > Still, in this matter we need to find a balance between the right of the > developer (who don't wish people to use the software in disrespect of the > licence) and the wish of users who want to do modifications, and as long as > they respect the licence, should not be furthermore molested. > > The fear of harassment only comes for someone who is willingly breaking the > licence, and seriously, do we want to encourage those ? Or anyone who can be accused of breaking the license. And in order to show you aren't, you would need to show up in the licensor's jurisdiction. > And finally, i know the upstream authors personnally, and i also understand > their situation enough to know that they won't engage in any such harrasment, > even if it was possible. I can understand that. However, we cannot say "the QPL is Free because the non-Free clauses will not be executed by one particular user of the QPL". Furthermore, if upstream has no intention of engaging in such harrassment, perhaps they could be persuaded to waive the clause that gives them the ability to do so. (Yes, I do understand that upstream does not like to deal with licensing issues.) - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature