Re: Desert Island Test [Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL]
On Monday 12 July 2004 11:45 am, Don Armstrong wrote:
> While the imagery of a computer programmer sitting on a lonely desert
> isle hacking away with their solar powered computer, drinking
> coconuts, and recieving messages in bottles might be silly, the rights
> that such a gedanken is protecting are anything but.
Not to argue against the intent of the Desert Island Test, but at least in the
United States, such a freedom is provided by the law/courts, not the license.
If the license require sending the modifications back upstream, and sending is
impossible for reasons including, but not limited to, residence on a deserted
island without means of communication, the doctrine of
impossibility/impracticability comes in to play. My contracts professor is
always quick to note that nothing is impossible (and then rants on about
quantum physics and elephants walking through walls), so impracticability is
the more "preferred" term.
Regardless, the freedom to not comply with the license (if compliance is not
possible) is already available in the U.S. Courts (and I imagine any other
common law jurisdiction). So, assuming a US centric view for a moment,
who/what are we trying to protect this this test beyond our poor
socially-isolated programmer?
-Sean
--
Sean Kellogg
2nd Year - UW Law School
c: 206.498.8207 e: skellogg@u.washington.edu
w: http://www.livejournal.com/users/economyguy/ <-- lazy mans blog
"When the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to treat everything
as if it were a nail."
-- Abraham Maslow
Reply to: