Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> So why is "You must give the source to the recipient of the binaries"
>> not equally objectionable from this point of view?
>
>That is simply a restriction on the allowed forms of distribution (namely,
>you may distribute source, or binaries plus source; you are not granted
>permission to distribute binaries alone). Similarly, (under various
>licenses), you may only distribute with ChangeLogs attached, only with
>copyright notices, only with a copy of the license attached, only in the
>form of an "original" plus "patches", etc. Distribution only on CD is also
>such a restriction, but an unacceptable one.
You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
I gave them (under 3(c)). I am then obliged to pass on my modifications
directly to people who I never provided binaries to. Is distribution
under 3(b) and 3(c) non-free?
>All the acceptable restrictions I can think of are of this form. (Of
>course, not all restrictions of this form are acceptable.) "Send it to a
>third party" and "Pet a Cat" are restrictions which are not of this form.
>This is Dictator Test-type stuff.
"Agree to pass on source to anyone that the recipient passes the
binaries on to" sounds like it's closer to that.
>> debian-legal is the list on which some people offer their
>> interpretations. It has no official standing or status.
>
>It is the list on which the interpretation is done, simply because it isn't
>being done anywhere else! :-P
Of course it's done elsewhere. The ftp masters and release manager do
their own interpretation.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: