Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:32:53PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > [compelled unrelated distribution] > >>For DFSG 5: What about the group of people that is in countries that >>impose an embargo or export restrictions on countries the "initial >>developer" is in. >>Consider something like a ssl-library was under this licence in the >>times where those were more strictly handled and the "initial developer" >>was outside the USA. > > Ooh, good one. That still applies, even -- if there's QPL'd software > written by an Iranian, the requirement to distribute anything back to the > original author on request totally screws you. It's even worse, because you > might reasonably think "well, the original author will never hear about my > specially linked version, so it's OK", so you distribute to friends, who > distribute to friends-of-friends, it gets back to the original author and he > compels you by the terms of 6.c to distribute in contravention of the laws > of your country. > > The QPL is bad news in yet another way. Do we need a DFSG basis for "forces > people to break the law"?
That is indeed a marvelous example of how the QPL is non-free. I'm definitely putting that in my summary, with links to these two mails. Thank you both. I think between this and the DFSG1 "fee" argument, I can easily justify the non-freeness of QPL 6c, and relegate the "dissident" and "desert island" tests to a "for more information" footnote. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
