On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:03:46PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > I'd challenge "certainly". It's the most reasonable interpretation, > considering that we want to allow people to use the software itself, too, > but throwing "certainly" in there is a little strong.
I think the distinction is moot, anyway. > > I think it's pretty much the same thing, anyway; most licenses apply > > restrictions on distribution--not caring whether it's aggregated or not. > > The QPL's restrictions on distribution still apply if aggregated with > > other works, so DFSG#1 applies even if we accept your argument. > > Well, reading the whole sentence as one entity, it could be interpreted that > DFSG #1 ONLY disallows aggregate prohibition, since there is no mention of > non-aggregate distribution at all. But almost all restrictions of non-aggregate distribution affect aggregate distribution identically. > Also, reading the second sentence as a > followup of the first, it only disallows upstream for charging a fee for > distribution of the software as part of the aggregate. The second sentence strongly feels to me like an additional requirement, just as the second and third sentences of DFSG#4 are unrelated to the patch requirement mentioned in the first. > Note that I don't agree with this interpretation, because it causes too much > trouble in too many cases, but I think it's an interpretation that can > easily be argued for. There are lots of interpretations for most clauses of the DFSG. DFSG#2: what is "source code" for a font? DFSG#3: "must allow all modifications" or "must at least allow some modifications?" DFSG#5, #6: including indirect discrimination or not? DFSG#10: grandfather clause or interpretation boundary? ... and many more that I'm not thinking of, I'm sure. I don't think trying to "clarify" each of these by rewording the clause would help, but I'd still be interested in hearing your suggestion (for DFSG#1; not intending to pollute the thread with arguments about the above examples, of course). -- Glenn Maynard
