Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 02:22:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:08:14PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:54:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:58:13PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Anyway, notice that QPL 6 doesn't speak about modification, but work which
> > > link to a QPLed library. Not exactly the same thing.
> >
> > Which is even worse, because the QPL is then compelling distribution of
> > essentially unrelated items. If dynamic linking doesn't produce a
> > derivative work, the QPL is overstretching it's bounds by quite a bit.
>
> And you ignored me arguing repeteadly that a derived work and a modified work
> are not the same thing, right ? Again this speaks highly of your capacity to
> follow up here and make informed arguments.
Go the ad hominem. Yeah. Not to mention the fact that I never argued that
a modified work is not a derived work. Quote me saying that. Go on. Go
nuts.
> > > Well, sure, but what is your moral ground for refusing the same modifications
> > > to upstream ?
> >
> > What's your moral ground for asserting that upstream has a right to my
> > modifications?
>
> What is your moral ground that he has not ? Elemental courtesy and decency
> sure would fall into play here.
They're not his modifications. What is your moral ground that he has?
> > > Well, i see disenting voices in that conversation, and the consensus you
> > > mention seems to be one of assertion, as it is quite lacking in analysis and
> > > real arguments, don't you think.
> >
> > Yes, I do see that quite a bit on one side of the discussion.
>
> Thanks, again you can only reject those accusation by counter attacking.
Yes, I do see that quite a bit on one side of the discussion.
> > > You don't give a free blank check here, you only give the right for the code
> > > to be integrated back in the original software, and in the case of dual
> > > licencing of said software, like in both the ocaml and Qt case, you give the
> > > right to have the _SAME_ software also relicenced under the other licence,
> > > thus allowing upstream to not have to handle a split patch. In no way does
> >
> > Upstream doesn't have to handle a split tree, they just don't integrate
> > anything they haven't got their permission grant or copyright assignment
> > for.
>
> Ok. But they can't reuse the modification then, and all the free software
> community looses then.
Why can't they reuse the modification? They either have the copyright (by
assignment) and can therefore do whatever they want, or they have the same
blanket permission they have with the QPL, but this time they haven't
coerced it. Either way they can incorporate the change into anything they
like, free, non-free, or otherwise.
> > For someone who is very quick to accuse others of not reading the rest of
> > the thread, you're *incredibly* good at forgetting what people have
> > previously told you.
>
> Given the amount of bullshit i have been told, well, one little minor lapse
> can be acceptable, and at least i accept my error, while others just don't.
One minor lapse. Does anyone else get the same benefit?
- Matt
Reply to: