[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 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.

So would a license that required you to redistribute any custom
modifications to any other unrelated software that you had made
available as a condition of distributing modified versions of it.

Hopefully you agree the above is clearly non free.

In the specific case that you mention, we've used DFSG 5 as a
mechanism for rejecting licenses that require distribution of
modifications to people outside of the distribution path of binaries
made from those modifications. At some point, the abridgement of
privacy of the author of the modifications overrides the good to the
community of seeing those modifications. The Dissident Test and Desert
Island Test provide a framework for thinking about two separate cases
where the privacy of the author overrides the good of the community.

[In the instance that I mention, I'd argue that the spirit of DFSG 9
applies, even though the letter may not.]

Don Armstrong

A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but
won't cross the street to vote in a national election.
 -- Bill Vaughan


Reply to: