Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 10:24:26AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Personally, I'm not sure that is as much of a problem as the
> requirement to distribute unpublished mods to a central authority on
> request. I'd be interested to know whether this aspect of the tests is
> grounded in the DFSG, and see that information added to the FAQ.
I agree that the "unpublished" issue warrants its own test. [The
"unpublished" test: If the license tries to restrict what a person
does with the software when it's not being distributed, it's not a
free license.]
In the U.S., copyright licenses [probably] don't have standing to control
what happens with unpublished works, so maybe this issue hasn't gotten
the attention it deserves.
> It can be argued that 6c requires the developer to pay something on
> demand from the original developer (DFSG 1) or is discrimination
> against a significant group (DFSG 5) and the task of political
> opposition (DFSG 6), although some don't think that's convincing.
It seems to me that DFSG#6, especially when taken in context of DFSG#4,
forbids restrictions on what a person can do with non-distributed copies.
More specifically, restrictions on free software developers -- unless they
fit in categories which the DFSG accepts -- are themselves discrimination
against a field of endeavor [free software development].
[It's certainly not like other users of this software will be violating
the copyright because of this clause.]
> > Given that this issue seems to be one of the most common
> > Freeness issues that isn't covered in the DFSG, at some point it
> > should be added as an additional Guideline.
>
> Maybe. Where did these tests originate? There's no reference in the
> FAQ.
I think they were developed in response to frequently arising issues.
That said, I think the dissident test and the desert island test
should be replaced with a better test.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00181.html
--
Raul
Reply to: