Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
luther@debian.org writes:
>>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:36:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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 has an "archive all distributed copies until the expiration of copyright"
>>>>requirement (QPL#6 has no expiration!), which is far more onerous, IMO.
>>>
>>> As I said elsewhere, I'm unconvinced by that. At any point you can avoid
>>> this by releasing the code to the general public. But that's an entirely
>>> separate point to the one that was being made.
>>
>>I agree with that assessment, with the exception that you should not
>>have to publish your code to the general public, only to those you
>>distribute the binary to. The GPL's "offer to provide source for 3
>>years" is questionable in isolation, but irrelevant since one can
>>provide source along with binaries and have no further obligations.
>>Even if you do the same with the QPL, by distributing both source and
>>binary to another party, your obligations have not ended, because the
>>copyright holder may still request those changes.
>
> Well, simply configuring your SVN/CVS/ARCH/Whatever archive to spam upstream
> with every change done should resolve all the issue. Or maybe giving him
> consultation access would be enough.
Spamming upstream is not enough. You have to provide one on request,
even if you just sent one. Additionally, now you're suggesting doing
away with the ability to make private modifications.
> The cost of hoarding the source of every version you have released may be
> high, but it hardly makes the licence non-free. It is good practice anyway,
> and maybe even elementary courtesy to the people you distribute the binary to.
And if my backups fail, and my drive is gone, what then? I can't
comply with the license.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: