Re: Bug#251983: libcwd: QPL license is non-free; package should not be in main
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:15:26PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> As for 6c, I am convinced by the arguments in
> which render its problems moot. As long as the original author
> agrees with that interpretation, the only problem left is the choice
> of venue.
Assuming the second link was ment to be
then yes, I think that is the correct interpretation.
Although clause 3 and 4 seem to talk about The Software (my library)
and include a patch clause for that - QPL 6 is about writing
an application that links with (modified) software and seems
to state THIS software needs to be publically available (at
least to the original author of The Software, which is indeed
less restrictive than the GPL) - but, I agree that you might
as well use clauses 3 and 4 and consider the creation of an
application to be a modification. Moreover, since such a modification
(being an application that uses The Software (the library)) would
only involve NEW files - a tar ball only including these
new files can be considered a 'patch' in my eyes - and hence
there is no need to use clause 6 at all for that.
Note that my interpretation is that clause 6 does not apply to
modifications to files of The Software - only to items that use
(link) with The Software: It is not possible to modify The Software
by actually changing existing source files with my copyright notice
in it and then distributing that under another free-ish license; that
is only possible through clauses 3 and 4 - and thus through the
distribution of original + diff files.
If this is agreed upon by everyone - then it makes sense to talk
about the choice of venue versus choise of law thing.
Provided that libcwd WILL be included in Debian, I am willing to
change the wording of the last sentence into one that only states
a choice of law, not venue. But then it must be very clear that
that is enough for making the license pass DFSG as such a change
would be irrevocable.
Carlo Wood <email@example.com>