Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> If you think we should be trying to interpret things like "must not
> discriminate", I'm not sure we have much at all that could be
> grounds for consensus, to be honest.
You feel that any amount of effective discrimination inherit in a
license is DFSG free. You feel that any amount of explicit
discrimination is non free.
I feel that effective discrimination may make a license non free. I
feel that (almost) any amount of explicit discrimination is non free.
Already the case where we have consensus between us is apparent, and
the only area needing exploration is the difference in opinions as to
whether we should allow effective discrimination (or to what degree).
> I'm really beginning to lose patience here - just about everybody
> here seems quite prepared to debate licenses forever, but doesn't
> want to actually _do_ anything about them...
I want to actually do something about improving the DFSG. I'm not
totally sure yet what should be done, though. Nor do I have the time
required currently to work out exactly what should be done and the
consequences of doing what should be done, and then convincing people
what should be done is what we should do.
I'll support and try to help out anyone who is willing to go into the
depth necessary to deal effectively with this, but again, I can't
commit the time to do it myself.
And as far as doing something about the licenses, I myself have spent
a considerable amount of time dealing with upstreams to fix the
problems that I've identified in them, as have multiple other
contributors to -legal. Sometimes those efforts aren't apparent,
because they're taken one on one, but they go on nevertheless.
Don Armstrong
--
The solution to a problem changes the problem.
-- Peer's Law
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: