On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 07:59:30PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:34:33PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > Would you might clarifying what that grounding is (or pointing me at a > > particular message that does so)? I'm currently drafting the second > > draft of the QPL summary, and that's one of the few things I'm still > > working on: a well-grounded justification from the actual text of the > > DFSG. The "fee" angle seems nebulous, and hard to justify; I > > more-or-less agree with it, but I need a clear way to justify why it is > > only a "royalty or other fee" if it is "paid" to the upstream developer, > > and not if it is "paid" to someone you are already distributing the > > software to. > > "The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling > or giving away the software ..." > > I believe "may not restrict" is the operative phrase; this is a restriction.
I think we need to include the rest of that sentence is important, though: "as a component of an aggregate software distribution...". I would fully support an amendment which made it explicit that DFSG #1 applied to individual distribution also, but as written I think it is mostly a protection for commercial Debian distributors, and a restatement of DFSG #9. A rewrite to be something like "... selling or giving away the software, either individually or as a component of an aggregate software distribution ..." would do the job, I think. Again, judgement is called for in the interpretation, but no more than currently. - Matt
