Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
* Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> [040714 19:01]:
> Nor does the QPL. It only allows distribution of binaries if you provide
> source upstream - it doesn't require the source to be distributed
> otherwise. The only difference between the QPL and the GPL in this
> respect is who the source is given to.
>
> GPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to the
> recipient. You claim this is not a fee.
This only forces you to make a distribution to someone more complete.
> QPL requirement: if you pass on binaries, you must pass on source to
> both the recipient and upstream. You claim this is a fee.
This adds totally new actions you need to do. It might even be
impossible for you (unable to send things, sending things costs to much,
upstream is in some country your goverment embargos, laws on how is
allowed to own code doing things within the code, ...)
It might also expose one to totally new risks: While you can exclude
warranty sometimes, exchanging it to the right to distribute might
count as selling and thus place you under warranty.
Or some terrorists (or goverments behaving like those) might find out
what you do with the code, don't like it and start to attack you...
> I entirely fail to understand the difference here. In both cases I have
> had to pass something of value on to people I might not have wanted to
> pass it on to.
But in one case you can control whom you give something, in the other
not. This was discussed to death already sometimes. When you cannot do
it in the Desert Island test, it cannot be free.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing
an editor and a MTA.
Reply to: