Re: Desert Island Test [Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL]
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Programmer A receives code while on a desert island with a mostly
> DFSG license attached to it that requires modification of the source
> be sent back upstream (DUTY) to greedy corporation B. A modifies
> the source, allowing him to eventually construct a coconut power
> hellocopter... but fails to send the modifications back to B due to
> lack of communication facilities. The duty in question will be
> discharged by the court under section 261 provided section 263 is
> satisfied (there are two other sections that relate to death and
> governmental regulation).
However, a rather compelling argument can still be made in this case
that an event has not occured, as A was already on a desert island
before the contract was made (or in this case, the license was
issued.) Therefore, 261 doesn't apply, and 263 additionally overrides
the application of 261 even if it did.[1]
Moreover, I'm not quite sure how the vagaries of contract law actually
apply in the case of licenses, which appear to be quite different from
contracts in the US.
> I'm happy to type them out if you are interested in this beyond pure
> academic discussion.
Please do.
[If you could also provide a cite to the 2nd Restatement of Contracts,
that would also be appreciated. I'm not quite sure where it falls into
the context of US legislation or case laws.]
Don Armstrong
--
"Because," Fee-5 explained patiently, "I was born in the fifth row. Any fool
would understand that, but against stupidity the very Gods themselves
contend in vain."
-- Alfred Bester _The Computer Connection_ p19
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: