Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
<snip>
>>"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?
That is simply a restriction on the allowed forms of distribution (namely,
you may distribute source, or binaries plus source; you are not granted
permission to distribute binaries alone). Similarly, (under various
licenses), you may only distribute with ChangeLogs attached, only with
copyright notices, only with a copy of the license attached, only in the
form of an "original" plus "patches", etc. Distribution only on CD is also
such a restriction, but an unacceptable one.
All the acceptable restrictions I can think of are of this form. (Of
course, not all restrictions of this form are acceptable.) "Send it to a
third party" and "Pet a Cat" are restrictions which are not of this form.
This is Dictator Test-type stuff.
>>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.
It is the list on which the interpretation is done, simply because it isn't
being done anywhere else! :-P
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: