Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
>>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.
>
> I see no way that forced distribution of code to upstream is a subject
> that springs directly from DFSG 1. If you disagree, then I'd suggest
> that DFSG 1 is modified in order to make it clearer.
OK. Given that you seem to have the reading of DFSG 1 which most
narrowly defines fee, and thus most broadly defines free, perhaps you
can suggest an alternate phrasing? Anything I can come up with ends
up including parts of 9 in 1.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: