Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 12:35:54AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Glenn Maynard writes:
> >On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 05:56:55PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >> I also think that this would be good to try and add to the DFSG. I
> >> think it would make a position we've tacidly had here on -legal much
> >> more clear than it is now.
> >
> >I think it derives directly from DFSG#1--certainly the spirit, even if
> >the letter is debated. I think adding new guidelines that are subsets
> >of existing ones would set a very bad precedent, since it implies that
> >the DFSG is to be read literally, as a set of rules, instead of a set of
> >guidelines.
>
> Do you not believe that would be better than the current situation
> where we have regular disagreements on some of this?
No, I don't. More clearly: I don't think a situation where we're forced
to read the DFSG as a set of rules (eg. like the OSD) is an improvement.
I think adding guidelines which are already in the DFSG will move us in
that direction.
That is, adding a guideline "must allow derived works on Tuesdays" seems
to imply that derived works on Tuesdays is not, in fact, covered by DFSG#3--as
it clearly is. Likeways, adding "must not force distribution of source to
anyone other than the recipient" implies that this isn't already required
by DFSG#1.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: