Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

luther@debian.org writes:

>>>> I wouldn't consider a license free if it said, for example, "if you modify
>>>>this program you must add your name to this wiki page as soon as possible".
>>>>It wouldn't fail the desert island test ("as soon as possible" might easily
>>>>mean "never") but it would fail the dissident test.
>>>
>>> But the QPL also fails the dissident test, and has a much less onerous
>>> requirement than the "Add your name to a wiki" license.
>>
>>It's a much more onerous requirement: it has the same effect, that you
>>must contact the original author, who then gets to do what he wants
>
> Hey, no, you are wrong on this. The original author has to contact you first,
> with the request. And i don't buy the idea of a generic call for patches,
> since nobody can prove that you indeed received that request (think about a TV
> less dissident, or a guy on a desert island :). And anyway, first upstream
> need to learn of the patch, which he wouldn't do if the dissident didn't
> broadly distribute its changes.

He doesn't need to learn of the patch first in the case of the generic
call.  Additionally, the idea is not to help users get away with as
much as possible.  It is desirable that users be able to do the right
thing, abide by the wishes of authors completely, and still have
freedom with respect to the software.

So we can't just suggest that users pretend they never heard the
generic call for patches, or the invocation of a termination clause.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu