Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:01:03PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:59:53AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 07:41:55PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:18:28AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Well, it is evident. The section 6 covers how you distribute these code
> > > > linking with the library. IF you distribute such code, you have to cumply to
> > > > all of a, b and c, is it not ? You don't see in the main header of 6 that you
> > > > have to satisfy one or the other, or you could safely ignore 6c and the whole
> > > > point would be moot.
> > >
> > > All three subclauses have to be satisfied or judged to not apply. 6a
> > > doesn't apply to source-only distribution ("all recipients of
> > Ok.
> > > machine-executable forms"). 6b applies to all distribution. 6c only
> > > applies if the items are private *and* the initial developer asks for a copy
> > > of the item.
> > Notice that it doesn't apply to private stuff, but only to not openly
> > distributed ones, please don't muddle the water.
> !Public == Private.
Mmm, there doens't seem to be a consensus about this definition.
> > > In the instance of applying 6c, we recurse through the licence, go through 6
> > > again, and *again* we don't apply 6a because the initial developer asks for
> > > a copy of the source. Of course, the obvious loophole there is that the
> > > initial developer asks for a copy of the binary instead, in which instance
> > > 6a is invoked, and all's good. But is charging for a binary instead?
> > > Presumably it is, as otherwise the licence is non-commercial-only, and
> > > non-free, but there's no exception for the initial developer on that point,
> > > so I can charge the initial developer an unrealistic amount of money for my
> > > binary.
> > Ok, are you so sure of this that you would care to go before a judge with this
> > interpretation ?
> No, because my French lawyer would do that for me.
And, did you ask him about this interpretation ? Please don't keep it to you
and share his view on this with us.
> > > > > who have a binary and want the source. In this case, if you are
> > > > > distributing source (that is not available to the general public), then
> > > > > the source is one of the "items" in question, and it must be provided
> > > > > under 6.c, which does not indicate that you may charge for cost of
> > > > > distribution.
> > > >
> > > > Notice that 6c speaks about "copy of the items". How do you interpret this.
> > >
> > > In the absence of clarification, I'd imagine it'd mean "a copy of the
> > > source", because the binary is of very limited use to the initial developer.
> > > No binary means 6a doesn't apply.
> > And is the second phrase of the 6 header not clear enough, please reread it.
> "These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements:".
> That makes no mention of the form of the items, either during the initial
> distribution, nor of the copy demanded of me by the initial developer.
Well, what would those be then ? But see my analysis of this in the other
> > > > This has no meaning apart from the stuff described in the 6 header, that is :
> > > >
> > > > You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
> > > > software items that link with the original or modified versions of the
> > > > Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following
> > > > requirements:
> > > >
> > > > These items clearly refer to "application programs, reusable components and
> > > > other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the
> > > > Software", and this clearly states that you have to cumply with all of the
> > > > following, 6a to 6c.
> > >
> > > Comply or show as non-applicable. In the same way that 6c doesn't apply to
> > > every act of distribution, 6a doesn't apply in all situations of
> > > distribution either.
> > Would you go before a judge with this interpretation ? What does you lawyer
> > say about this ?
> My imaginary lawyer says you're a tool. Yours laughs at you. I think
> there's a pattern here.
well, the difference is that you have not consulted a lawyer, only makes us
believe you have, and make up wild speculation claiming it is legal advice.
> > > > > (Are you using webmail through lynx?)
> > > >
> > > > I have no choice, since i was not originally CCed, i have to go to the web
> > > > archive to read the discussion, get the url of emails i want to respon, launch
> > > > lynx over ssh on the box which does mail processing, open the url, go to
> > > > respond to or whatever link and send the mail.
> > >
> > > Does copy-and-paste not exist on your system?
> > Thanks all the same, but the web url for replying don't seem to be accepted by
> > mutt, so please inform yourself before making sarcastic claims such as those.
> <rolls eyes>
Whatever, i have subscribed now, so the point is moot.