Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

luther@debian.org writes:

>>>  > So if the developer is just doing it for himself, then the clause
>>>  > doesn't apply.
>>>
>>> Let's go through this again:-
>>>
>>>        `These  items, when  distributed, are  subject ..'
>>>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>So if I give a copy to my wife for review, that triggers this.
>
> If the upstream author asks you about it. For that to happen, first your wife
> needs to inform him about the change, so he gains knowledge of it. 

Or he can publish a request that anyone with changes send them to
him.  It doesn't say the request has to be personal or private.

> Also, on a moral ground, how would you justify taking free source code, making
> your own modifications, and refusing those modifications to upstream, even
> though he could integrate it in the original source, and make it available to
> the rest of the world ? That sounds like bastardly egoist on your part. (err,
> your not meant personally here, just to be clear).

Because he doesn't just want to distribute them to the rest of the
world.  He also wants to turn them into a proprietary product and sell
them!  The BSD license is "fair" (a term invented for use here): it
offers lots of permission, and asks nothing.  It's more generous than
"fair".  The GPL is "fair": it offers many permissions, but some of
them can only be exercised if you pass the same permissions on to
others.  That is, it's a copyleft.  But it's probably the most
restrictive you can be and still be "fair".

The QPL isn't even close to that line of "fair"ness: It is a copyleft
which requires that even more permissions be granted to the initial
author.  I get some rights to the initial author's code, but he
insists that I give him not only the same rights to my code (which
would be a "fair" copyleft), but much more.

I don't think this idea of "fair"ness is explicit in the DFSG right
now, but it's an important component of Freedom.  It's also a superset
of DFSG 1.  In some ways, it's implied by DFSG 1, but it could be made
more clear.  I think it's possible to write this in a couple ways --
concentrating on the symmetry, or on the lack of demands on the
licensee.  Does anybody have strong feelings as to which way is more fruitful?

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu