Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <edmundo@rano.org> wrote:
>
>>It seems to me that the "dissident test" is just a weird way of saying
>>something like:
>>
>>DFSG 11. Licence Must Not Invade Privacy of Individuals or Groups
>
> Right. That's the sort of conclusion I'm coming to. If it /is/ actually
> effectively another criterion, then the right way to go about it is by
> changing the DFSG. I don't think it really exists there at the moment,
> and so I think trying to test packages against it is unreasonable.

I wouldn't object to calling it out in a specific point, but I think
it's already a necessary conclusion from the existing points of the
DFSG.

You can push the privacy requirement off of one existing DFSG point
only by putting it onto another.  For example, you can push it off of
point 1 by saying that it's not a distribution problem, only a
modification problem.  And then I say:
  
  I have to be able to prepare derivative works.  Allowing me to do so
  only for certain derivatives (Say, those with Changelogs) is Free.
  Creating other conditions which I must fulfill is not Free -- whether
  those conditions require sending a dollar to the author, putting my
  name on a Wiki, publishing my changes, or sending my work to the
  initial author.

So you say it doesn't kick in until there's distribution, at which
point I go back to saying it's a fee.  But if you insist on the right
to freely derive new works and to freely distribute them, then you
have to have the right to not distribute them, nor to do things which
might prevent you from being able to make modifications -- like
publishing that you're about to do so.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu