Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue
Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>:
> Note that even if we end up disagreeing on this issue, I'm still
> interested in helping draft GRs to address conclusions of the QPL
> discussion. I think some of these issues are fairly important to
> actually bring to the project; they keep coming up again in multiple
> contexts and I'd like to know how the project as a whole feels because
> it would make evaluating licenses easier.
In http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/01/msg00051.html it is
claimed that "you must send your changes back upstream" requirements
have been rejected as DFSG-free by debian-legal since 1998.
And, if you're interested in this, please take a look at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/10/msg00296.html in which I
claim not to understand something, which I still don't understand and
understand even less after reading the follow-up which Branden
described as "expressing this so clearly".
Reply to: