Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> On 2004-07-15 02:25:50 +0100 Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> 
> > [...] For almost every license discussion
> > on -legal, there is little discussion about what the actual software
> > does.
> 
> I consider this a bug, not a feature. We simply don't have the tools 
> for analysing licences without application to software, so nearly 
> always some software is used to facilitate the analysis, even 
> hypothetical software.

If we get too mixed up in the peculiarities of the software, that
distorts the analysis.  It all too often leads to arguments like "you
would never want to do that sort of thing with this software".

> > [...] I simply don't buy it that a license might
> > be free for one kind of program but not free for another.
> 
> Good. I think the argument you are referring to is this one:
> 
> > Now, it is true that authors can add additional clauses to change the
> > status of a license. [...]
> 
> I don't agree that this is "using a different licence" though. It's 
> using the same licence in combination with some other stuff.

Which makes it a different license.  When Hans Reiser added his
"clarifications" to the GPL, he was no longer distributing ReiserFS
under the GPL.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu