Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>So, have you found something non-free that cannot be justified by the >>DFSG? Would you be willing wo work on wording for a modification to >>the DFSG? If you need sponsors I would be happy to help. > > I don't think that the QPL requires any changes to the DFSG to be > clearly non-free. That is, the choice-of-venue clause and the full > publication of any distributed change both have clear grounding in the > DFSG.
Would you might clarifying what that grounding is (or pointing me at a
particular message that does so)? I'm currently drafting the second
draft of the QPL summary, and that's one of the few things I'm still
working on: a well-grounded justification from the actual text of the
DFSG. The "fee" angle seems nebulous, and hard to justify; I
more-or-less agree with it, but I need a clear way to justify why it is
only a "royalty or other fee" if it is "paid" to the upstream developer,
and not if it is "paid" to someone you are already distributing the
software to.
> Before this issue comes up again with a more closely worded license, I
> do think there's an aspect of freedom generally recognized by people
> here which *should* be part of the DFSG. It wasn't a big deal in the
> free-software community when the DFSG was written, but it's become so
> since. It's the second biggest distinction between how the OSI read
> the same text that we have: the fairness issue that I posted about
> earlier today.
>
> I'd very much like some help in phrasing that properly.
I think that the vast majority of the fairness issue is captured by DFSG 3:
> Derived Works
>
> The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
--------
> allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> the original software.
---------------------
- Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
