Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 07:59:30PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> 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.
I think we need to include the rest of that sentence is important, though:
"as a component of an aggregate software distribution...". I would
fully support an amendment which made it explicit that DFSG #1 applied to
individual distribution also, but as written I think it is mostly a
protection for commercial Debian distributors, and a restatement of DFSG #9.
A rewrite to be something like "... selling or giving away the software,
either individually or as a component of an aggregate software
distribution ..." would do the job, I think.
Again, judgement is called for in the interpretation, but no more than
currently.
- Matt
Reply to: