Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:32:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> protected. In the past, we have compromised in order to be able to
>> distribute software that we thought was "free enough" - DFSG 4 is a good
>> example of this. Those active on debian-legal appear less willing to
>
>DFSG#4's patch exception is a horrible bug. Code reuse and the ability
>to fork projects are fundamental cores of free software. Patch clauses
>almost entirely prevent both--usually deliberately; at least one recent
>user of the QPL explicitly does not want to use the GPL because he wants
>to prohibit forking. The fact that Debian calls them "free" is embarrassing.
>Hopefully some day it can be fixed.
The upstream who wants to use the QPL to prevent forking fails to
understand the license he's placed his software under. That's entirely
not our problem. Patch clauses make it harder to engage in certain
activities but don't usually prevent them - they're by and large good
enough. Accepting this limitation but being much harsher on others gives
an impression of inconsistency. "Oh, we accept that stuff by historical
accident, even if something similarly onerous in another field would be
non-free" is just not a good argument. We should be consistently harsh
across the field.
>> Did you mean 9A(b)? "Any requirement for sending source modifications to
>> anyone other than the recipient of the modified binary---in fact any
>> forced distribution at all, beyond giving source to those who receive a
>> copy of the binary---would put the dissident in danger." The very fact
>> that he's a dissident puts him in danger, and the hostile government can
>> declare that the source must be provided regardless of what the license
>> says. I still can't imagine a practical situation where this would be an
>> issue. If the dissident is likely to be put in danger then he is already
>> doing something worse than breaching copyright law.
>
>It represents the right to make private modifications. I should be able to
>change a program, send it to a friend, and agree with him not to further
>distribute it, without being forced to send it to a third party.
Hrngh. Yes. But why? Which part of the DFSG implies this? I can see that
it would be nice to have that requirement, but is it necessary?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: