Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:44:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> 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
> >
> > Well, i am somehow doubtfull that sucha generic call is legally binding, so
> > your point is moot. How can upstream guarantee that the modifier did receive
> > the call and convince the judge of it ?
>
> Can you provide any evidence that such a generic call not legally
> binding? Or are you just somehow doubtful, without any reason?
Well, this is common sense, so i guess it would be upto you to prove the
contrary. But don't fear i will be getting legal advice this afternoon,
altough not IP specific one, and i will tell you what comes of it.
> I'd settle for "I think I heard once that..." evidence right now.
> >> 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.
> >
> > Yeah, whatever, and you are the holder of the only true way, right ?
> >
> >> So we can't just suggest that users pretend they never heard the
> >> generic call for patches, or the invocation of a termination clause.
> >
> > Well, sure we can. And before you disagree, i encourage you to make some legal
> > research, if basic common-sense doesn't apply to you.
>
> So you're suggesting that the QPL is free because we can tell users to
> disregard the authors wishes, disregard what the license says, just
> shut your ears and wait for them to take you into court?
No, i am saying no such thing, please give me detailed explanation on how you
read this in my previous post.
> That's right up there with "just distribute binaries of that GPL'd
> work. They'll never know."
The GPL doesn't state that you have to distribute sources to your users on
request, it says you have to give it or provide a 3 year offer to have access
to them.
Here the QPL states that on request of upstream, you have to provide sources.
If upstream never requests the sources, you don't need to provide. Nowhere do
i see it mentioning an obligation to inform upstream.
> I think this illustrates very clearly the level of contortion you have
> to engage in to consider the QPL free.
Only if you chose to misinterpret it to your convenience.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: