Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:12:57AM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > Sorry, but i don't believe such a request is legally binding.
>
> I do. More to the point, neither of us is the judge who's going to
Well, as said, i did some legal consulting, and the mention that a TV
broadcasted request for patches should be legally binding did bring in some
round of laughter. Furthermore, i was mentioned the fact that the request
should be nominal, both to the modificator and the actual patch involved,
which would furthermore make a TV broadcasted request for all modifications
doubly non binding.
> be judging this. It's much safer to interpret a license literally and
> slightly broadly, then to try and guess what is and isn't legally
Well, as mentioned earlier, the choice of law is the french law, which seems
to be ok here, the only point of controversy being the choice of venue, which
the licence sets to the versaille court, but which may not be a legal clause.
> binding; furthermore what is now not legally binding may be so in
> the future. As copyrights last life+70, this might be tried by Emperor
> Louis XXXI, Duke of Mississippi, King of France, Emperor of Greater
> Eurasia. Or by a strictly literal computer judge.
Whatever. i doubt that in any of those cases, a request not done in person, or
in at least some nominal form (letter, email, in-person request, sending an
advocat or whatever to do the request on your behalf) would be binding in any
venue you chose to mention. Still, if you have real legal information to the
contrary, i would be interested to hear about it. I would be less interested
though in half-guesses and wild speculation though.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: