Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 11:35:58AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> That should be mentioned, yes. It should also be noted in such a
> suggestion that this alternative would be GPL-incompatible. Also, such
> a license takes advantage of the deprecated DFSG 4, which may or may not
> be removed in the future; should that be noted as well?
I believe he has essentially said that he wants to only allow patches, in
order to prevent forking, so I think any approach that he'll accept will
have to use DFSG#4.
(I personally consider the patch element of DFSG#4 bogus. Patch clauses
prevent forking and code reuse almost entirely, both of which are critical,
fundamental elements of Free Software. I tend to suspect that people
using them want the individual benefits of Free Software--of free contributed
work, bug fixes, code review, distribution--without the only reciprocation
of placing the work in the pool of reusable code.)
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: