On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:36:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > But the QPL also fails the dissident test, and has a much less onerous > requirement than the "Add your name to a wiki" license.
It has an "archive all distributed copies until the expiration of copyright" requirement (QPL#6 has no expiration!), which is far more onerous, IMO. > The problem is that it's not clear what the dissident test was made for. > In combination with the desert island test, there's effectively a > requirement that changes can be kept private. That's not a test any > more, that's a guideline. There should either be a clear argument that > the right to keep modifications private is enshrined in the DFSG as > stands, or alternatively we should go through the necessary procedure to > change the DFSG. "Send it to a third party" and "reveal your identity" are just as readily read as non-free from DFSG#1 as "pet a cat" and "distribution only on CD". If the former can't be considered non-free from DFSG#1, then I don't think the latter can, either; DFSG#1 would be rendered meaningless. (To be clear, the latter two requirements are ones which I find clearly and obviously non-free; if we differ on those, we probably have deeper disagreements.) Yes, there's interpretation involved. The DFSG is, as we all know, a set of guidelines; it must be interpreted to have any meaning at all, and debian-legal is the list on which that interpretation is done. -- Glenn Maynard
