Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 03:12:25PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>> > Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >>You should not need a technical workaround for a legal problem.
>> >
>> > We accept this as free for patch clauses.
>>
>> Notice those have a special exception in the DFSG -- such impositions
>> are non-free in general, but as a particular exception, patch clauses
>> are Debian-Free.
>
> Right, which indicates that we have nothing in principle against minor
> technical awkwardnesses. If DFSG 4 didn't explicitly allow patch
> clauses, somebody might read it as forbidding them. On the other hand,
> their awkwardness is recognised - we encourage people not to use
> licenses that require this sort of workaround.
On the contrary, we do have something in principle against technical
awkwardness -- but compromised those principles to accept patch
clauses.
>> > There's a strong feeling that people should be allowed to do what they
>> > want if it doesn't involve other people. Private undistributed
>> > modification falls within this. Distribution, on the other hand,
>> > is something that is of interest to the original developer. When
>> > multiple people are involved, there's a belief that they should both
>> > consent to what's going on.
>>
>> Distribution is no more of interest to the original developer than
>> modification. If I'm distributing to you, what business of the
>> developer's is it? Well, he has interest in free software, so he can
>> require that I can give you only free software which derives from his
>> work.
>
> Of course distribution is of interest to the original developer. The
> original recipient (who I provided the software to) is making a copy of
> something that I put effort into without necessarily giving me anything
> in return.
And if he has a Free license, then he can do that without the initial
developer's interference.
>> But it doesn't serve Free Software for him to require that I send
>> *him* a copy too, especially when his interest is in putting out a
>> proprietary version! So a Free license isn't going to involve the
>> original author sticking his nose into my private distribution any
>> more than it involves him interfering with my private modifications --
>> that is, to the extent useful for preserving the freeness of the work.
>
> In what way does it serve free software to allow people to hoard
> modifications rather than allow the community to take advantage of them?
Perhaps you weren't paying attention: a restriction on the ways in
which a recipient may manipulate a work is Free iff it advances free
software. The converse is not true -- that is, it is not necessary to
show that Free Software is served by either decision, just those that
on their face restrict freedom. If we adopt the rule you suggest,
we'd never me able to make any decisions but very very clear ones.
In any case, allowing people to decide with whom they associate is a
central component of freedom. A license that compels me to interact
with the initial author is, thus, non-free.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: