On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:34:33PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> writes: > >>So, have you found something non-free that cannot be justified by the > >>DFSG? Would you be willing wo work on wording for a modification to > >>the DFSG? If you need sponsors I would be happy to help. > > I don't think that the QPL requires any changes to the DFSG to be > > clearly non-free. That is, the choice-of-venue clause and the full > > publication of any distributed change both have clear grounding in the > > DFSG. > Would you might clarifying what that grounding is (or pointing me at a > particular message that does so)? I'm currently drafting the second > draft of the QPL summary, and that's one of the few things I'm still > working on: a well-grounded justification from the actual text of the > DFSG. Choice-of-venue is discriminatory against large classes of people, those who live far away and don't have the means to contest a suit over long distances. If, as Sven argues, this is actually a null clause under French law, then it's a license blemish rather than a DFSG problem, and should be removed for clarity. > The "fee" angle seems nebulous, and hard to justify; I more-or-less > agree with it, but I need a clear way to justify why it is only a > "royalty or other fee" if it is "paid" to the upstream developer, and > not if it is "paid" to someone you are already distributing the > software to. Do you disagree with the definition I've advanced in earlier messages, that a fee is something given in *exchange* for a license? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature