Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> It's a pain in the ass, but why should having responsibilities
> attached to your use of freedoms be non-free?
It depends on what the responsibility is.
I could make you responsible for paying me $500 every time you used
one of the freedoms[1] granted by my license.
Clearly that would be a responsibility attached to your use of
freedoms granted by my license that made the license non free.
To determine if the requirement is free or non-free, we must balance
the requirement (or the responsibilty) with the preservation of
freedom in the context of the DFSG. Whose freedom is being protected?
Whose freedom is being abridged? Are these freedoms that are required
by the DFSG?
Don Armstrong
1: I think "freedom" is a misnomer here... consider this a privilege
or ability.
--
I leave the show floor, but not before a pack of caffeinated Jolt gum
is thrust at me by a hyperactive girl screaming, "Chew more! Do more!"
The American will to consume more and produce more personified in a
stick of gum. I grab it. -- Chad Dickerson
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: