[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Copyright verification needed



On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 21:36:25 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:

> Le vendredi 29 juin 2007 à 19:50 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
[...]
> > 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.

Do you mean distributing a program that links with a QPLed library *as a
patch against the library* under section 3 and 4 of the QPL?
This seems really contorted...

Among other things, clause 3b would kick in and a blanket permission to
dual license the program would be granted to the initial developer of
the library.  But I seem to be in the minority by thinking that clause
3b fails the DFSG:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01736.html


-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html
 Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpgF1D7w3kfD.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: