Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> "Brian" == Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>> In the case of the QPL, you have to give the initial author > >>> many more rights with the software than you had -- he can take > >>> it proprietary, and you can't. Also, no matter who you want > >>> to give those modifications to, you have to give that broad > >>> license to the upstream. > >> Right. Why is this non-free? Base your answer on the DFSG. > > Brian> I don't agree with your idea that the DFSG must describe > Brian> all ways in which licenses can be non-free. The wicked are > Brian> endlessly cunning. > > I think that in an ideal world all ways in which a license is non-free > should have a basis in the DFSG. Here are some reasons why we'd want > this to be true. First, some honest, well meaning people will read > the DFSG and try to make sure their licenses follow the DFSG before > submitting their license to Debian. We want to encourage such people > and work with them.
No, we don't. We don't want people to write new licenses. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
