Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Brian" == Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu> writes:

    >>> 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.

    Brian> I don't agree with your idea that the DFSG must describe
    Brian> all ways in which licenses can be non-free.  The wicked are
    Brian> endlessly cunning.

I think that in an ideal world all ways in which a license is non-free
should have a basis in the DFSG.  Here are some reasons why we'd want
this to be true.  First, some honest, well meaning people will read
the DFSG and try to make sure their licenses follow the DFSG before
submitting their license to Debian.  We want to encourage such people
and work with them.  As such, we should desire to clearly communicate
with these people.  So we should say what we mean.

Second, reqiring things to have a basis in the DFSG acts as a check on
this list.  We don't want to be arbitrary; we want to interpret the
project's ideas about freedom, not come up with whatever decision
feels right at the time.  The DFSG is part of our agreement both with
ourselves and with the outside world.  We should hold ourselves to it
in an ideal world.

Yet things are not ideal.  We may discover some license that clearly
fails to meet our idea of freedom; we may realize a mistake in the
DFSG.  I think that's fine so long as we are willing to admit the
mistake and try to fix it.  I don't mean that the DFSG should spell
out everything or even that the DFSG should be a definition in the
strict sense of the OSD.  I simply mean that you should be able to
point to a part of the DFSG and say that part of the DFSG motivates or
justifies your belief that something is non-free.  If you cannot do
that then you should either decide that the item under discussion is
in fact free or that you desire to modify the DFSG.  If you try to
modify the DFSG and fail, then perhaps the project disagrees with you
about what is free; that can happen and that is why we have
governance.

So, have you found something non-free that cannot be justified by the
DFSG?  Would you be willing wo work on wording for a modification to
the DFSG?  If you need sponsors I would be happy to help.


--Sam