Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:04:54AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> > The only way that this could realistically be defined as a "fee" is in a
> > narrow legal sense. But the DFSG is not written to be read in a narrow
> > legal sense - it's written to be read by humans. I do not believe that
> > DFSG #1's use of the word "fee" was intended to cover provision of code
> > to others.
>
> Why? You've said this several times, but without explanation.
Because...
> > DFSG #1 makes no mention of who the fee must be payable to. If this
> > definition really were intended, the GPL's forced distribution of source
> > to the recipient is just as much in violation as the QPL's requirements.
>
> Similarly, you've said that several times, despite repeated
> correction: the GPL never forces distribution of source. It's just
> that it fails to allow distribution of binaries without source.
Nor does the QPL. It only allows distribution of binaries if you provide
source upstream - it doesn't require the source to be distributed
otherwise. The only difference between the QPL and the GPL in this
respect is who the source is given to.
QPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to
both the recipient and upstream. You claim this is a fee.
GPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to the
recipient. You claim this is not a fee.
I entirely fail to understand the difference here. In both cases I have
had to pass something of value on to people I might not have wanted to
pass it on to.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: