On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 07:06:04PM -0800, David Johnson wrote: > > > Section 6c, which talks about giving a copy to Troll Tech, only applies > > > to section 6, which is concerned with distribution. Basically, if and > > > only if you distribute such a program, then Troll Tech also gets a copy > > > if they ask. The QPL is completely silent on personal uses, disallows > > > "private" distributions, and is hunky-dory with public distributions. > > > > Troll Tech indicates it is their intention to catch people who are not > > distributing code to cough up a copy. Stark contrast to what you claim > > here. Their intent seems to be about 9/10 of what a license on a piece of > > software means in the US at least, based on what little case law there is > > on the matter. > > The only thing I am claiming is what is written in the license, since I > have nothing else to go by. But I am curious, how do they intend to find > out which people are not distributing code? You pose an interesting question, one I think has been asked. I don't recall if there as an answer, much less if it was a good one. => > How could they possibly know? I think what they are attempting to do > with Section 6c is to eliminate "private" distributions. The Corel beta > test comes to mind. IMHO, it's a lot less irksome than those freeware > licenses that say "for personal use only." Right, but it's still a GPL compatibility contention as written. It can be REwritten to say exactly what you interpret it to say without conflicting with the GPL. I'll offer language which I believe would do that if it'll actually be given a fair reading... (and I also want people to check it for GPL compatibility in case I miss something...) -- Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> Debian Linux developer http://tank.debian.net GnuPG key pub 1024D/DCF9DAB3 sub 2048g/3F9C2A43 http://www.debian.org 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 * Culus fears perl - the language with optional errors
Attachment:
pgpFUAseh8eCp.pgp
Description: PGP signature