Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> wrote:
>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.
Right. So the fact that I have to do something awkward is not
intrinsically 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?
In the case of forced distribution of code back upstream, it results in
a wider range of people being able to take advantages of your
modifications. In the case of GPL 3(b), it results in people you
distribute to being able to distribute under 3(c) if they don't have the
resources to provide 3(a) or 3(b) themselves. In all cases, more people
are able to benefit from the modified software than would otherwise be
able to. I see this as a worthwhile goal. As far as I can tell, this
doesn't conflict with the DFSG in any obvious way.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: