Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Glenn Maynard wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:59:14AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I'm not sure I buy this. Surely the GPL #7 effectively restricts the
>> scope of derived works I can make and distribute to those that don't
>> infringe upon actively enforced patents? Isn't that a more onerous
>> restriction?
>
>I acknowledge that the DFSG isn't so specific that these tests follow
>directly from it. It could be read so strongly that the BSD license
>fails (discriminates against the field of removing copyright notices!),
>or so loosely that almost anything passes. (That's one of the benefits
>of these tests; they help find where the DFSG is actually read.)
Right, that's basically my point. There's plenty of grey fuzziness here,
and the QPL falls within it. debian-legal have produced some tests in an
attempt to clarify which bits of the grey fuzziness are free or not, but
they're effectively arbitrary - they haven't been well discussed within
the project as a whole. If we're going to make decisions about the grey
fuzziness, we need to do it in a way that includes a much wider range of
the developer body. Until that's done, there's no intrinsic reason for
debian-legal's idea about the location of the line to be better than
anyone else's opinion.
>> With the exception of the desert island and dissident scenarios, are
>> there any cases where the effects of QPL 6 are worse than those of the
>> GPL's requirements?
>
>That's hard to answer, since those scenarios are specifically designed
>to check the effects of clauses like QPL 6. If you mean "what real-
>world cases exist that the extreme test cases of the DI and CD test?",
>there are plenty, mostly in the "private modifications" category.
>See Message-ID: <[🔎] 20040710002414.GB22775@zewt.org>
>(http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00174.html).
With the possible exception of the dissident test, I don't think any of
these are obviously freedom issues. I'm also not sure I buy the
dissident test - the GPL allows for a hostile government to declare that
it holds a patent on some section of the subversive code and prevent it
from being distributed any further. This is potentially worse for the
dissident movement as a whole, even if it's better for the individual
dissident who wrote the code. They can't comply with the GPL unless they
fight the lawsuit, and, uh, well. Oops.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: