Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>The theory here is quite simple. You must not be forced to distribute to
>>anyone who you aren't already distributing to. Perhaps the dissident is
>>distributing, morally and comfortably, through a secure underground
>>network, but to contact the author, he would have to use insecure means
>>traceable by his enemies. He should not be morally obligated to do so.
>>*This* is the sort of thing the dissident test is about.
>
> Then why does it not say so rather than using emotive arguments? The
> cynical voice in me says something along the lines of "If it just said
> 'The license must not compel publication of modifications to anyone that
> does not receive binaries' then it would sound more like a guideline
> than a test and so would need to go through a GR to modify the DFSG",
> but...
Well, maybe you're right.
The party line about the DFSG, I am told, is "They are not rules, but
guidelines. Just because it satisfies the letter of the DFSG doesn't mean
it satisfies the spirit."
'The license must not compel you to distribute anything to anyone, although
it may restrict what you may distribute' seems to many of us to be an
important element of the 'spirit' of the DFSG. Maybe we're wrong.
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: