Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
David Schleef <ds@schleef.org> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:48:10PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> The restriction in the GPL takes away *my* "right" to not have to share
>> modifications; the restriction in the QPL prevents me taking away the
>> rights of the copyright holder to see my modifications. You're not
>> providing arguments for why one of these viewpoints is better than the
>> other. I'm especially unconvinced that my right to privacy is stronger
>> than the right of everyone to enjoy my modifications.
>
>1) Such private modifications might not be legal to distribute. As
>a researcher at a university, I made several modifications to GPL
>projects that incorporated code or use of libraries that are not
>distributable at all. Of course, these have never seen the light
>of day outside of that research group.
They'd be illegal to distribute inside your research group anyway, and
if you're not even doing that then the QPL doesn't require you publish
anything.
>2) There's no definition of the granularity of modifications. Must
>I send a patch every time I modify a file? At the end of every day?
>For someone who may need to clear patches through a legal department,
>this may be a significant burden.
The license seems fairly clear. If you produce a piece of software that
is derived from QPLed code, then you must send that software to the
upstream developers on request. They could request it every 5 minutes,
which would potentially be a problem, but there's no reason to believe
that they would do.
>3) (related to 1) I may have other legal obligations (such as an NDA)
>which do not allow me to distribute my own modifications that are
>otherwise OK to distribute.
You'd have the same problem with the GPL. Since you can't provide the
right to the recipients to pass it on further, you're not permitted to
pass it on at all.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: