Re: Copyright verification needed (original) (raw)

[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 21:36:25 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:

Le vendredi 29 juin 2007 à 19:50 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : [...]

I cannot see how you can say that "the QPL is DFSG-free [...] if you don't apply section #6". How can you escape from the restrictions set forth in section #6?

By distributing the program as a "modification to the Software". It is completely unpractical and implies distributing it as a set of patches, but the DFSG allow this.

Do you mean distributing a program that links with a QPLed library as a patch against the library under section 3 and 4 of the QPL? This seems really contorted...

Among other things, clause 3b would kick in and a blanket permission to dual license the program would be granted to the initial developer of the library. But I seem to be in the minority by thinking that clause 3b fails the DFSG: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01736.html

-- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment:<pgpG3nbAlGm9b.pgp>
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: