[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

Glenn Maynard wrote:
> 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.

This summary is intended for the QPL in general, not just for the libcwd

> (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.)

I agree entirely.

- Josh Triplett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: