Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

>> He doesn't need to learn of the patch first in the case of the generic
>> call.  Additionally, the idea is not to help users get away with as
>
> Well, i am somehow doubtfull that sucha generic call is legally binding, so
> your point is moot. How can upstream guarantee that the modifier did receive
> the call and convince the judge of it ?

Can you provide any evidence that such a generic call not legally
binding?  Or are you just somehow doubtful, without any reason?

I'd settle for "I think I heard once that..." evidence right now.

>> much as possible.  It is desirable that users be able to do the right
>> thing, abide by the wishes of authors completely, and still have
>> freedom with respect to the software.
>
> Yeah, whatever, and you are the holder of the only true way, right ? 
>
>> So we can't just suggest that users pretend they never heard the
>> generic call for patches, or the invocation of a termination clause.
>
> Well, sure we can. And before you disagree, i encourage you to make some legal
> research, if basic common-sense doesn't apply to you.

So you're suggesting that the QPL is free because we can tell users to
disregard the authors wishes, disregard what the license says, just
shut your ears and wait for them to take you into court?

That's right up there with "just distribute binaries of that GPL'd
work.  They'll never know."

I think this illustrates very clearly the level of contortion you have
to engage in to consider the QPL free.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu