Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
>> > 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.
But you suggested sending every change upstream to resolve this
issue. I told you why that wouldn't work. Now you seem to be
agreeing that it wouldn't work, for different reasons. So why did you
suggest it in the first place?
>> > 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.
That's because we don't use the 3-year clause. We can choose not to
use that, and still have freedom with respect to the software. We
can't choose not to activate QPL 6 and still have freedom.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: