Josh Triplett wrote: > Here is a proposed summary of the QPL 1.0, based on the relevant threads > on debian-legal. Suggestions are welcome, as well as statements of > whether or not this DRAFT summary accurately represents your position. > > Please note that until other debian-legal participants indicate their > position on this DRAFT summary, it does not necessarily represent the > debian-legal consensus. For this reason, I am sending this only to > debian-legal, for further discussion. > > --- Begin DRAFT debian-legal summary of the QPL 1.0 --- > > The members of the debian-legal mailing list have examined the Q Public > License (QPL), version 1.0, and determined that software licensed solely > under this license is not Free Software according to the Debian Free > Software Guidelines (DFSG). > > * Clause 6c requires modified versions that are not distributed to the > public to be provided to the original developer on request. This > requirement fails the "Desert Island" test and the "Dissident" test (see > sections 9a, 9b, and 12o of the DFSG FAQ at > http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html). DFSG-free licenses must > allow non-distributed or privately-distributed modifications, and cannot > require distribution to anyone, except for requiring that source be > distributed to those who receive a binary.
What I would say is "... must not require distribution to anyone, except as part of a distribution already being made (such as the requirement that you distribute source when you distribute a binary, or that you distribute the unmodified version when you distribute the modified one). Essentially, I agree. > * The license contains a "choice of venue" clause, which states that > "Disputes shall be settled by Amsterdam City Court.". Since in many > legal jurisdictions, a party that fails to appear and defend themselves > in the courts of the given jurisdiction will automatically lose such a > dispute, such "choice of venue" clauses place an undue burden on the > recipient of the software in the face of any legal action (whether > legitimate or not), and are therefore considered non-free. Such clauses > also fail the "Tentacles of Evil" test (see section 9c of the DFSG FAQ > at http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), since the original > developer ^^^ ...or his successors in copyright... > can bring many unfounded legal actions against distributors > and force them to travel to a given location to defend themselves, which > would effectively remove the right to distribute the software. I agree. > For software currently licensed under the QPL 1.0 whose authors desire > its inclusion in Debian, debian-legal recommends licensing that software > under a Free Software license such as the GNU GPL, either in place of or > as an alternative to the QPL 1.0. I agree. :-) > > --- End DRAFT debian-legal summary of the QPL 1.0 --- > > - Josh Triplett -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
