Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:42:49AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> writes:
> > 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.
Why did we do that?
> > 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.
Your arguments are distressingly circular. You asked me why private
modification could be held to different standards when compared to
distributed modification. I told you. One is outside the developer's
field of interest. One isn't. Replying to that by saying "But a free
license means that it isn't of interest to the original developer"
doesn't actually say anything useful.
> > 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.
Being forced to provide your modifications to everyone advances free
software. How could it not do? It means that more free software is
available.
> 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.
You're arguing by assertion again.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: