Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:41:39PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> 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
Ok, let's explain it to me again.
If you make only private modification, and don't make any release, you can
forget about the QPL and do as you please. Each of the different QPL clauses
at discussion here start with a : when you do a release, or when distributed.
Once you make a release, and you are afraid of loosing your changes, you send
those changes upstream in prevention, and thus comply to the licence in
advance.
There, was that so difficult ?
> 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?
Because maybe you didn't read what i said ?
> >> > 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
Well, because _WE_ don't use the 3-year clause, doesn't mean that other don't.
And i wonder how far we are not using the 3-year clause when people download
only binaries without sources, or when we distribute binary-only CD/DVDs at
expos and such. Sure i heard the argument that the sources were offered and
rejected, but how real is that ? And would this stand before a judge ?
> use that, and still have freedom with respect to the software. We
> can't choose not to activate QPL 6 and still have freedom.
Yes, by not distributing modifications. If you are not allowed to make
distribution compliant with the GPL, your licence to it is void, same applies
here.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: