Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 03:20:00PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> writes:
>> > I entirely fail to understand the difference here.
>>
>> It's that one is to the recipient, and the other is to recipient and
>> upstream.
>
> Why does that result in one being a fee and the other not being a
> fee?
As I posted only a few minutes ago, so you didn't see when you wrote
this: A fee is a payment for a return. The upstream demanding
valuables for Freedom is charging me a fee. The recipient gives me
nothing, so any payments i give him are not a fee.
I don't think such quibbling over shades of meaning is appropriate for
as vague a document as the DFSG, though.
> If I distribute under GPL 3(b) and someone then distributes that under
> 3(c) I'm bound to pass on my valuable modifications to people I didn't
> provide binaries to myself. How is that not a fee? Why is upstream
> special?
Then you chose a non-free path through the license. Not our problem.
Use GPL 3(a) for distribution if you want a free license. There's a
reason Debian -- and I -- distribute modified GPL'd works only under
3(a).
>> In the case of the QPL, you have to give the initial author many more
>> rights with the software than you had -- he can take it proprietary,
>> and you can't. Also, no matter who you want to give those
>> modifications to, you have to give that broad license to the upstream.
>
> Right. Why is this non-free? Base your answer on the DFSG.
I don't agree with your idea that the DFSG must describe all ways in
which licenses can be non-free. The wicked are endlessly cunning.
> Appeals to nebulous concept of "platonic non-freeness" will be
> rejected.
Perhaps you would be more comfortable with the OSD than the DFSG.
> Answers should cover at least 3 sides and take 10 minutes. (5
> marks).
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: