Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Ok. Why do we consider this worse than the GPL's requirement that source
>> be distributed with binaries? A pragmatic disident isn't going to hand
>> out source to people that he wants to run the software - there's more of
>> a risk of it being traced back to him. A written offer isn't much better
>> if it has his name on it. The GPL makes it harder to be a political
>> dissident than the BSD license does. Why have we drawn the line there
>> rather than in a place that would also exclude the GPL?
>
>Source is no more identifying than binaries, if you are really trying to
>conceal yourself. Those with sufficient skill could certainly analyze
>either.
>
>Also, nothing in the GPL requires the written offer to include a name,
>just some method of making the request. Furthermore, the safer option
>for the dissident would probably be to simply distribute the source
>alongside the binaries, and have no further obligations.
But the QPL doesn't require that any changes include your name. It's
possible to provide those modifications to the general public without
being traceable. It doesn't seem any riskier to the dissident than the
GPL's provisions.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: