Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Glenn Maynard writes:
>On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 11:09:06PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> I'm seriously beginning to wonder if people
>> debating licenses here actually _want_ there to be progress, or if the
>> debate _itself_ is the raison d'etre.
>
>I certainly have no desire to waste time arguing about arbitrary termination
>clauses and other things that seem obviously and extremely non-free, but
>"fixing" annoying mailing list threads by changing founding documents is a
>bad idea.
>
>I don't think "tightening up" is a good thing; that implies, to me, that
>the project will be less able to deal later with new non-free restrictions;
>there are more and more of those on a daily basis, and modifying the DFSG
>on a daily basis is bad. However, your notion of "tightening" may not be
>the same as mine. Let's stop being vague: if you have a suggested change
>to the DFSG, let's hear it, so we can talk about it specifically.
An example: several people here seem to believe that specifying a
legal venue in a license is non-free. Take that to a vote as a DFSG
amendment. If the vote is carried, then we have agreement amongst
DDs. If not, we clearly as a project consider it free. Either way, we
can stop the fruitless debate that's been pinging backwards and
forwards for months if not years. This is a common bugbear in many
licenses that is'nt going to go away any time soon...
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky,
Tongue-tied & twisted, Just an earth-bound misfit, I...
Reply to: