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.
In http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/01/msg00051.html it is claimed that "you must send your changes back upstream" requirements have been rejected as DFSG-free by debian-legal since 1998. And, if you're interested in this, please take a look at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/10/msg00296.html in which I claim not to understand something, which I still don't understand and understand even less after reading the follow-up which Branden described as "expressing this so clearly".
