Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Glenn Maynard writes:
>On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 12:35:54AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> 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.
Clearly.
>Likeways, adding "must not force distribution of source to anyone
>other than the recipient" implies that this isn't already required by
>DFSG#1.
And this is exactly the kind of thing that needs clearing up, and you
know it. There is still significant debate about whether or not DFSG#1
actually means that.
If we're actually going to do anything constructive about the license
discussions here, then why not agree them and codify them _clearly_ in
the DFSG? That way DDs looking for license guidance might actually be
able to refer to the DFSG *alone* without having to spend ages waiting
for a -legal debate to happen.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
"I can't ever sleep on planes ... call it irrational if you like, but I'm
afraid I'll miss my stop" -- Vivek Dasmohapatra
Reply to: