Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Edmund" == Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <edmundo@rano.org> writes:

    Edmund> Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>:
    >> Note that even if we end up disagreeing on this issue, I'm
    >> still interested in helping draft GRs to address conclusions of
    >> the QPL discussion.  I think some of these issues are fairly
    >> important to actually bring to the project; they keep coming up
    >> again in multiple contexts and I'd like to know how the project
    >> as a whole feels because it would make evaluating licenses
    >> easier.

    Edmund> In
    Edmund> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/01/msg00051.html
    Edmund> it is claimed that "you must send your changes back
    Edmund> upstream" requirements have been rejected as DFSG-free by
    Edmund> debian-legal since 1998.


I agree that forcing people to send changes upstream should be
non-free.  I think I disagree with the long-standing justification for
why the DFSG already says this.  I'd be happier if it was explicit.

But Brian and I were not really discussing forced distribution; we
seem to both agree that is non-free.  We were discussing licenses that
allowed the upstream author to do proprietary things with
contributions while restricting others from doing so.