Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Raul Miller wrote:
> > Likewise, if the change author is on a desert island, I don't see how
> > the change author can receive any requests.
>From the DFSG FAQ:
> < This holds even if such requirements are only "upon request", as the
> < castaway might be able to receive messages but be unable to send them.
Raul Miller wrote:
> > Perhaps these test should be updated to focus more directly on the
> > practical problems we're trying to solve? [The "desert island" test, in
> > particular, seems like it could be phrased better -- I think a "poverty"
> > test would be much more apropos.]
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 06:03:27PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> The practical problem addressed by the Desert Island test is the ability
> to make private modifications. This could be phrased in terms of custom
> software used within a business, but it wouldn't be nearly as catchy or
> succinct. :)
How does this sound:
Unnecessary Burden Test
The license shouldn't place special requirements on authors of changes.
Seemingly trivial requirements might require a month out of the
author's life, or more, in situations that are not rare enough, such
as extreme poverty or complying with the requirements of repressive
governments. For free software, it's ok to require that changes be
licensed such that everyone can receive them -- requiring more than
that just creates problems.
?
It seems to me that this covers all Desert Island and Dissident cases,
and has the additional advantage of being obviously related to the DFSG
(don't discriminate against persons or groups). Also, I think it makes
more sense than the both the Desert Island and Dissident tests.
[That said, perhaps there's even better ways to express this test.]
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: