Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> 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.
Bullshit, you have provided it before it was asked, so where is the problem ?
Also, about private modifications, 6c only applies to 'distributed' code, so
it in _NO_ way comes into play when doing 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.
Well, yes. The same applies with GPLed when using the 3 year clause though,
and the GPL is not non-free because of it.
And then, well, this is bad luck to you, i have thought about the same, and i
guess it will be upto the judge to decide if you really lost your disk, or if
you are only pretending.
Still a time limit on this one would be reasonable.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: