On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 02:59:18PM -0700, 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. Thank you for doing this. > --- 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 s/that software licensed solely/, in general, works licensed to the public solely/ > under this license is not Free Software according to the Debian Free s/is not/are not/ > 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. Simplification: s/anyone, except for requiring that source be distributed to those who receive a binary./third parties not involved in a specific act of distribution/ (Let's get that "source" and "binary" stuff out of there and be more general.) > * The license contains a "choice of venue" clause, which states that > "Disputes shall be settled by Amsterdam City Court.". Since in many Get rid of the dependent clause, as we've seen that different users of the QPL change the choice of venue clause without noting that they have done so. In any case, which specific venue it is doesn't affect our reasoning. > 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 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. > > 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. Sounds good. You may or may not want to take into account the Debian Wiki page on DFSG-free licenses[1], and what it has to say about the QPL. The DFSG-freeness of this license has been called into question. Some people appear to believe that because the Qt library is in Debian main, that the QPL is DFSG-free. That is a hasty conclusion, however, because the Qt library is also licensed under the GNU GPL (see http://www.trolltech.com/newsroom/announcements/00000043.html). The QPL is not GPL-compatible, which, regardless of one's opinion about the license's DFSG-freeness, poses a major practical problem for any code licensed under the QPL that is reused elsewhere in conjunction with code under the GNU GPL. This makes the QPL alone a particularly poor choice of license for a library. Furthermore, it is not clear that the Trolltech corporation (the author of the Qt library and the QPL itself) believes the QPL to be a free software license. Trolltech's website describes how their dual-license approach is intended to be "open source-friendly" (see http://www.trolltech.com/company/model.html). If Trolltech felt that the QPL alone were friendly enough to open-source, why do they have a dual-licensing policy? Copyright holders in QPL-licensed works should be encouraged to follow Trolltech's example, and dual-license their work under the GNU GPL or another clearly DFSG-free license. Full disclosure: I wrote much of the above. [1] http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?DFSGLicences -- G. Branden Robinson | Religion is regarded by the common Debian GNU/Linux | people as true, by the wise as branden@debian.org | false, and by the rulers as useful. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature