martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > debian-legal, I am CC'ing y'all for hope of valuable input. Please > refer to http://bugs.debian.org/251983 for a history of this > discussion. > > It's about the QPL, specifically term 6c. and the choice of legal > venue, which Nathanael claims to be in contradiction with the DFSG, > but which has never really been settled. The bugreport contains > links to previous discussion.
I think the problems with choice of venue are pretty settled. I used to think it wasn't a problem, but have been convinced otherwise. As for 6c, I am convinced by the arguments in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00626.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00626.html which render its problems moot. As long as the original author agrees with that interpretation, the only problem left is the choice of venue. <snip> > > The pressure put upon me to change the license of libcwd is driven > > by either personal favours or misunderstandings. There is no need > > to change it as it satisfies the DFSG. Unless your lawyers prove > > otherwise and an explicit note on the debian website is made that > > the QPL does NOT satisfy the DFSG I advise you to take no action > > and keep things as the are. > > carlo, i am on your side. but let's try to get this settled once and > for all. let's get the QPL to be called > DFSG-free-but-not-favourable. Carlo, please don't take this personally. The QPL is not the first license that has changed from being DFSG-free to non-free after subsequent evaluation. It is unfortunate but inevitable. The Gnu Free Documentation License, in some cases, was considered free. Then Debian took a longer look at it and decided it wasn't. Similarly, there is talk that the IBM's Common Public License has problems as well. It is just the nature of how license evaluations are done. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
