Le vendredi 29 juin 2007 à 19:50 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : > > No. Section #6 only applies to components "that link with the original > > or modified versions of the Software". It doesn't apply to derived > > works. > > I am afraid I am not following you. > > Section 6c of the QPL v1.0 restricts your ability to privately > distribute components "that link with the original or modified versions > of the Software". > > You cannot opt out from this restriction, unless you refrain from > developing such components. > The DFSG require that you are able to develop such components, and the > restriction is non-free. > > I cannot see how you can say that "the QPL is DFSG-free [...] if you > don't apply section #6". > How can you escape from the restrictions set forth in section #6? By distributing the program as a "modification to the Software". It is completely unpractical and implies distributing it as a set of patches, but the DFSG allow this. > | This license is governed by the Laws of Norway. Disputes shall be > | settled by Oslo City Court. > > This is a choice of law *and* a choice of venue. Sorry, I misread that one. Anyway I still don't think choice of venue to be a problem for open source licenses, but that's another discussion. (Oh, and don't misread me: even if by twisting the terms in the best possible way the license can be seen as free, it is a really crappy license.) -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `- our own. Resistance is futile.
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=