MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-07-14 02:17:37 +0100 Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> wrote: >> MJ Ray wrote: >> >>> Having a fairly short summary that references another one doesn't seem >>> like a bad thing. Hopefully they'll be common. >> >> That's exactly what I had in mind; a license summary, and if necesary, >> package summaries that reference the relevant license summary and add >> anything specific to the given package. > > Why is range[2,n+1] analyses better than range[1,n]? The analysis of the application of a license to any given package may well differ from the general analysis of that license, or from the analysis of any other package under that license. Having a general case to work from seems superior than working from just another package summary, which may have various special-case differences of its own. In reality, I suspect that the separate license analysis approach will require 1 general analysis and some small fraction of n addition analyses for those few packages with unusual applications of the license. > How can this list can analyse a licence without inventing a hypothetical > package, when the DFSG are for software and not licences? It seemed > pretty clear that you were working for libcwd for the recent QPL draft > summary. Not at all. libcwd was simply the package that raised the issue of the QPL. My summary was not intended to be a summary of libcwd's situation, but of the QPL 1.0. After that summary is completed, I intend to use it as a basis for discussing the libcwd case. I would feel more comfortable discussing libcwd after it is determined that the only two non-free clauses are the "send patches upstream" and "choice of venue" clauses. This is actually the perfect example for my previous point above. Had I summarized the specific case of libcwd, I would have ignored writing about the "send patches upstream" clause in any detail, because the libcwd author waived that clause. Also, in the case of libcwd, both the author and the maintainer would like an official statement on the QPL before proceeding, so I think further discussion on that topic without a QPL summary would not be helpful. (Furthermore, the libcwd maintainer said in one message that he was actively discussing the issue with the author, and trying to negotiate a DFSG-free license.) - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature