Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:03:46PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I'd challenge "certainly". It's the most reasonable interpretation,
> considering that we want to allow people to use the software itself, too,
> but throwing "certainly" in there is a little strong.
I think the distinction is moot, anyway.
> > I think it's pretty much the same thing, anyway; most licenses apply
> > restrictions on distribution--not caring whether it's aggregated or not.
> > The QPL's restrictions on distribution still apply if aggregated with
> > other works, so DFSG#1 applies even if we accept your argument.
>
> Well, reading the whole sentence as one entity, it could be interpreted that
> DFSG #1 ONLY disallows aggregate prohibition, since there is no mention of
> non-aggregate distribution at all.
But almost all restrictions of non-aggregate distribution affect aggregate
distribution identically.
> Also, reading the second sentence as a
> followup of the first, it only disallows upstream for charging a fee for
> distribution of the software as part of the aggregate.
The second sentence strongly feels to me like an additional requirement,
just as the second and third sentences of DFSG#4 are unrelated to the patch
requirement mentioned in the first.
> Note that I don't agree with this interpretation, because it causes too much
> trouble in too many cases, but I think it's an interpretation that can
> easily be argued for.
There are lots of interpretations for most clauses of the DFSG.
DFSG#2: what is "source code" for a font?
DFSG#3: "must allow all modifications" or "must at least allow some
modifications?"
DFSG#5, #6: including indirect discrimination or not?
DFSG#10: grandfather clause or interpretation boundary?
... and many more that I'm not thinking of, I'm sure. I don't think
trying to "clarify" each of these by rewording the clause would help,
but I'd still be interested in hearing your suggestion (for DFSG#1;
not intending to pollute the thread with arguments about the above
examples, of course).
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: