Re: Bug#251983: libcwd: QPL license is non-free; package should not be in main
<posted & mailed>
Carlo Wood wrote:
> 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.
OK. Since you confirm that interpretation, then that clause is fine. :-)
Hooray! Perhaps a link to that specification of the interpretation and
your confirmation of it should be put somewhere. (In the package copyright
file? On the debian-legal page?)
> 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.
Well, we went over it very carefully, and those two were the only problem
issues we saw. I would be willing to say that that was enough, though I
obviously can't speak for everyone, let alone future generations of
There are none so blind as those who will not see.