Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:34:33PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> 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. 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.
"The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling
or giving away the software ..."
I believe "may not restrict" is the operative phrase; this is a restriction.
Clearly, this is a case where judgement needs to be applied; taken to the
extreme, it would render almost all licenses non-free.
I know that some people will want to argue that any such judgement must
follow directly and literally from the DFSG; but I think that's equivalent
to arguing that the DFSG is to be interpreted as a set of laws rather than
guidelines. (I'd be curious how these people would justify "pet a cat when
you distribute" being non-free. I really do have trouble calling "petting a
cat" a fee, but it's certainly a restriction.)
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: