Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 07:58:00PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:44:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen:
> > >> So we can't just suggest that users pretend they never heard the
> > >> generic call for patches, or the invocation of a termination clause.
Sven Luther:
> > > 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.
BTS:
> > 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?
Sven:
> No, i am saying no such thing, please give me detailed explanation on how you
> read this in my previous post.
OK, let's go down the thread here.
First we have "[W]e can't just suggest that users pretend they never heard
the generic call for patches". You then said "Well, sure we can".
There's two interpretations here. Firstly, that you're advocating the
"if they can't prove it, it never happened" legal theory. Which is fine if
you *want* to be adversarial, but I'd hope that we're all adult enough in
the Free Software world to *want* to abide by the terms of the licensor.
The alternate interpretation is that you're suggesting we can ignore a
generic call for patches because it's not legally applicable. You
apparently have legal advice which backs the "TV ad is not legally
applicable" stance, which suggests you're of the second interpretation. My
first interpretation of what you wrote was the first, also, so I think that
if you want to avoid flames, you might want to expand your reasoning as
early as possible, so others can understand what you're thinking.
That still leaves the question of whether you believe that following the
spirit of a licence is a good thing to do, even though by a happy
confluence of inexact wording and legal boundaries, the letter of the
licence allows your action (or inaction, in this case).
I'm a "abide by the spirit" kind of guy, so if I had modified a QPL-licenced
program and distributed the modifications privately, and I came to know[1]
of a request by the original licensor to provide patches to him/her under
the terms of the licence, I would feel somewhat obligated to fire the
patches upstream.
- Matt
Reply to: