>>>>> "Edmund" == Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Edmund> Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Note that even if we end up disagreeing on this issue, I'm
>> still interested in helping draft GRs to address conclusions of
>> the QPL discussion. I think some of these issues are fairly
>> important to actually bring to the project; they keep coming up
>> again in multiple contexts and I'd like to know how the project
>> as a whole feels because it would make evaluating licenses
>> easier.
Edmund> In
Edmund> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/01/msg00051.html
Edmund> it is claimed that "you must send your changes back
Edmund> upstream" requirements have been rejected as DFSG-free by
Edmund> debian-legal since 1998.
I agree that forcing people to send changes upstream should be
non-free. I think I disagree with the long-standing justification for
why the DFSG already says this. I'd be happier if it was explicit.
But Brian and I were not really discussing forced distribution; we
seem to both agree that is non-free. We were discussing licenses that
allowed the upstream author to do proprietary things with
contributions while restricting others from doing so.
