Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:15:26AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> Why shaky? When an clause results in discriminating against people,
> groups or fields of endeavor (of course within the limits of free
> software[1]) then the licence is non-free. Why should we make
> a difference between explicit prohibitons and things that effectively
> prohibit? Can I replace a veto against using my software in an nuclear
> plant by a condition that when used in a nuclear plant one must publish
> all security measures of the plant and make the licence thus "free"
> without changing who if effectively allowed to use it and who not?
I think the only way to even begin to approach "effective discrimination" is to
approach via intent. If a clause does not explicitly say "This may not be used
in foo" but goes to obvious and lengths to prevent usage for foo, then that
counts as discrimination. Getting confirmation of intent from the author is
probably going to be very important in these cases. The desert island test
definitely does not demonstrate effective discrimination in this fashion though.
- David Nusinow
Reply to: