Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:36:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> But the QPL also fails the dissident test, and has a much less onerous
>> requirement than the "Add your name to a wiki" license.
>
>It has an "archive all distributed copies until the expiration of copyright"
>requirement (QPL#6 has no expiration!), which is far more onerous, IMO.
As I said elsewhere, I'm unconvinced by that. At any point you can avoid
this by releasing the code to the general public. But that's an entirely
separate point to the one that was being made.
>> 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.
>
>"Send it to a third party" and "reveal your identity" are just as readily
>read as non-free from DFSG#1 as "pet a cat" and "distribution only on CD".
>If the former can't be considered non-free from DFSG#1, then I don't think
>the latter can, either; DFSG#1 would be rendered meaningless.
So why is "You must give the source to the recipient of the binaries"
not equally objectionable from this point of view?
>Yes, there's interpretation involved. The DFSG is, as we all know, a set
>of guidelines; it must be interpreted to have any meaning at all, and
>debian-legal is the list on which that interpretation is done.
debian-legal is the list on which some people offer their
interpretations. It has no official standing or status.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: