Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 11:02:57PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> There might be a case where we are seeing a common clause in licenses
> where there is significant belief on -legal that it might make a
> license non-free but it cannot be clearly, explicitly (unanimously?)
> tied back to existing clauses in the DFSG. Current topical examples
> would "choice of venue" and "clashes with some national laws".
>
> After some discussion, if there is significant opinion here that such
> a clause *is* non-free, a DFSG change should be proposed to make that
> explicit. That way we can get the opinion and mandate of the general
> population of DDs to *actually* *explicitly* claim that such clauses
> are non-free. When something is in the DFSG, we have much more of a
> case to make to upstream authors than "<foo> on debian-legal doesn't
> like it.
>
> I'm not saying that disagreement *itself* should cause a GR (as
> somehow you seemed to believe I was saying). Do you understand me now?
Regardless of the trigger, adding "choice of venue is non-free" to the
DFSG will start a tendency to enumerate non-free things. Adjusting the
DFSG to better express our intentions is useful; special casing individual
clauses is a hack.
> Quite. As time goes on with me following -legal, I'm understanding
> more and more why most DDs really have no inclination to pay any
> attention at all to the pointless discussions that go on here. The
> rest of Debian actually gets on with productive work...
As does d-legal. (By your tone, you clearly have no interest in being
convinced otherwise, so I won't waste time debating this.)
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: