Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> wrote:
> >>>>> "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.

No, we don't.  We don't want people to write new licenses.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu