Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:37:18AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> 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...
It doesn't seem to be going back and forth; I don't recall any real
question of it until very recently, and there only seems to be a very
few people arguing against it. I don't like the precedent set by a
couple people disagreeing with a consensus forcing d-legal to a GR.
My opinion might change if there was an indication that this was a
widespread and unreconcilable disagreement: if we can't come to a
solid consensus on a real issue, then something else needs to be done.
However, simple disagreement and discussion doesn't indicate that;
discussion very often leads to agreement. (In practice, it's very
rare for d-legal to not be able to reach a reasonable consensus on
a real issue.)
In any event, there's still productive discussion taking place on this
issue, which means it's certainly too early to consider trying to set
anything in stone (ignoring the fact that no changes to the DFSG are
likely to stand any chance before the release, after GR 2004-004).
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: