Re: Desert Island Test [Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL]
Sean Kellogg wrote:
> 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?
Situations where it's possible and practical, but is still a serious
imposition. Email costs $10 a message. Or requires a day's travel to
another town. You can think of others easily.
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: