Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> >Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >> But the dissident test would only be an issue in jurisdictions with
> >> hostile governments.
> >
> >Which happens to be all jurisdictions. Some of them don't shoot you,
> >just fine you or put you in jail (e.g. DMCA). But every jurisdiction
> >has bad laws.
>
> Then the dissident has already lost. Under the QPL, the government
> can get the copyright holder to ask for a copy of the code.
That is just a small wrinkle on an already non-free clause.
> Under the GPL, the government can just pass a law requiring that all
> distributed source code be provided to the government.
Except that there are no such governments. Get back to me when that
actually happens.
> >> Which suggests (again) that the dissident test doesn't actually
> >> represent the statement you're trying to make.
> >
> >Come again?
>
> The dissident test isn't about dissidents, because it only applies in an
> unrealistically narrow case. It's about privacy, and it should just say
> that rather than bothering to mention the poor abused dissidents at all.
I don't understand why you think the example is unrealistically
narrow. I'm sure that the author of DeCSS would not be happy to have
to make any more communications concerning DeCSS, considering the
amount of legal harassment Jon Johansen suffered.
Phil Zimmerman might also have preferred to be a bit more anonymous.
Moreover, the statute of limitations for what he has been charged with
has run out, but copyright certainly hasn't. So if he had not
complied with a software license, he could still be prosecuted for
copyright infringement.
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
Reply to: