Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

>>> If you can't relate these tests to the guidelines, they are effectively 
>>> guidelines themselves. If they're guidelines, then they should be in the 
>>> DFSG. There's a defined process for changing the DFSG - you propose a GR 
>>> and you convince the developers to vote for it. Effectively extending 
>>> the DFSG without developer agreement is not acceptable behaviour.
>>
>>The DFSG would need amendment to *allow* some sorts of software -- to
>>declare things free which would otherwise be obviously non-free.  They
>>don't need to change in order to forbid something already clearly
>>non-free.
>
> How does that follow from the social contract? "We provide the
> guidelines we use to determine if a work is "free" in the document
> entitled 'The Debian Free Software Guidelines'" quite clearly states
> that the DFSG is what is used to determine whether something is
> free.

And also that they're guidelines.  They aren't an exhaustive set of rules.

> So far there have been two main forms of argument against the QPL - ones
> which aren't founded on the DFSG, and ones which would render the GPL
> non-free as well. I find these unconvincing. Find some arguments that
> don't fall into these catagories (and you're going to have to do more
> than just handwave madly to convince me about the "fee" one) and I'll
> listen. Until then, I don't think it's really worth discussing things
> much further.

I think you're in a distinct minority.  If you believe you're correct,
*you* need to do some convincing.  I haven't heard any arguments from
you for why these restrictions -- choice of venue, forced contact with
the author, and asymmetry between the initial author and later authors
-- are Free.

I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry
issue, which is most closely tied to a DFSG point: I can't distribute
modifications under the same license through which I received the
software.  The author used a license which gets him a license to use
my modifications in a proprietary way, but I don't get such a license
for *his* changes.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu