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

Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL



Josh Triplett wrote:

> Here is a proposed summary of the QPL 1.0, based on the relevant threads
> on debian-legal.  Suggestions are welcome, as well as statements of
> whether or not this DRAFT summary accurately represents your position.
> 
> Please note that until other debian-legal participants indicate their
> position on this DRAFT summary, it does not necessarily represent the
> debian-legal consensus.  For this reason, I am sending this only to
> debian-legal, for further discussion.
> 
> --- Begin DRAFT debian-legal summary of the QPL 1.0 ---
> 
> The members of the debian-legal mailing list have examined the Q Public
> License (QPL), version 1.0, and determined that software licensed solely
> under this license is not Free Software according to the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines (DFSG).
> 
> * Clause 6c requires modified versions that are not distributed to the
> public to be provided to the original developer on request.  This
> requirement fails the "Desert Island" test and the "Dissident" test (see
> sections 9a, 9b, and 12o of the DFSG FAQ at
> http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html).  DFSG-free licenses must
> allow non-distributed or privately-distributed modifications, and cannot
> require distribution to anyone, except for requiring that source be
> distributed to those who receive a binary.

What I would say is
"... must not require distribution to anyone, except as part of a
distribution already being made (such as the requirement that you
distribute source when you distribute a binary, or that you distribute the
unmodified version when you distribute the modified one).

Essentially, I agree.

> * The license contains a "choice of venue" clause, which states that
> "Disputes shall be settled by Amsterdam City Court.".  Since in many
> legal jurisdictions, a party that fails to appear and defend themselves
> in the courts of the given jurisdiction will automatically lose such a
> dispute, such "choice of venue" clauses place an undue burden on the
> recipient of the software in the face of any legal action (whether
> legitimate or not), and are therefore considered non-free.  Such clauses
> also fail the "Tentacles of Evil" test (see section 9c of the DFSG FAQ
> at http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), since the original
> developer
^^^
...or his successors in copyright...
> can bring many unfounded legal actions against distributors 
> and force them to travel to a given location to defend themselves, which
> would effectively remove the right to distribute the software.

I agree.

> For software currently licensed under the QPL 1.0 whose authors desire
> its inclusion in Debian, debian-legal recommends licensing that software
> under a Free Software license such as the GNU GPL, either in place of or
> as an alternative to the QPL 1.0.

I agree.  :-)

> 
> --- End DRAFT debian-legal summary of the QPL 1.0 ---
> 
> - Josh Triplett

-- 
There are none so blind as those who will not see.



Reply to: