Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 09:25:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:44:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> >> 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?
> >
> > Well, this is common sense, so i guess it would be upto you to prove the
> > contrary. But don't fear i will be getting legal advice this afternoon,
> > altough not IP specific one, and i will tell you what comes of it.
>
> I'm claiming that the license should be read as saying what it plainly
> says, and that other implied conditions should not be read into it.
> I'm perfectly willing to believe such implied conditions should be
> read -- but I want to see evidence of such. The claim that it's
> common sense, when that position appears uniquely yours, is unpersuasive.
Please read and reponsd to the other thread i started. I asked for legal
advice, even if not specialized one, on this subject, and the reply i got
confirmed my intuition. Now, it is your turn to find legal evidence to
contradict it.
> >> 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?
> >
> > No, i am saying no such thing, please give me detailed explanation on how you
> > read this in my previous post.
>
> Well, see, I said this:
>
> So we can't just suggest that users pretend they never heard the
> generic call for patches, or the invocation of a termination clause.
>
> And then you said this:
>
> Well, sure we can.
>
> So that seems to be a pretty direct suggestion that we tell users to
> ignore the license and the requests of the author.
Oh, whatever, pelase read my newly started thread, and see if you still have
objections to it.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: