Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Jacobo Tarrio <jtarrio@trasno.net> wrote:
> Well, the intent behind the dissident test is not to protect you from
>oppresive governments; it is to check whether the license forces you to
>sacrifice your privacy.
But /why/? The dissident test suggests that we consider the case of a
dissident being put in danger because of the license bad, but it's
clearly a ridiculous situation. Tests should be tied to actual practical
outcomes, and it should be clear why those outcomes are considered bad.
> I wouldn't consider a license free if it said, for example, "if you modify
>this program you must add your name to this wiki page as soon as possible".
>It wouldn't fail the desert island test ("as soon as possible" might easily
>mean "never") but it would fail the dissident test.
But the QPL also fails the dissident test, and has a much less onerous
requirement than the "Add your name to a wiki" license.
> Tests are only for testing, not for stretching as much as we can: "but he
>can just ignore the license. If he's a dissident it's not like he's not
>breaking any law". Oh, yes, but that's what the dissident test was made for.
The problem is that it's not clear what the dissident test was made for.
In combination with the desert island test, there's effectively a
requirement that changes can be kept private. That's not a test any
more, that's a guideline. There should either be a clear argument that
the right to keep modifications private is enshrined in the DFSG as
stands, or alternatively we should go through the necessary procedure to
change the DFSG.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: