Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Glenn Maynard writes:
>On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 01:35:44PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>I don't think adding lots of new guidelines to the DFSG, codifying the
>entire body of d-legal case law, and forcing d-legal to put every discussion
>to a GR, is a workable solution; and that's what I see following from this.
It doesn't have to go _that_ far. What _is_ needed is some discussion,
agreement and documentation of common principles and license clauses
in the correct place. Things like the choice of venue clause and
forced source distribution clauses. Despite some opinions here,
arguments about those cannot be unequivaocally tied to the DFSG - if
they could, we wouldn't be having the debate about the QPL that's been
going on for the last few weeks. Whether you like it or not, the DFSG
is the document that all DDs have agreed to use as a guide on software
freedom; anything else is merely unsupported opinion.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
"Every time you use Tcl, God kills a kitten." -- Malcolm Ray
Reply to: