Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On 2004-07-20 01:16:33 +0100 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:24:13AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-07-19 19:07:58 +0100 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:39:14PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen
wrote:
[...]
Hrm, when did Brian claim his was the consensus view? [...]
Because [...]
Sorry, I don't think "because" is a valid reply to "When...?"
I doubt they would actively support offensive licensors either, so
any such
GR would be an interesting choice of the lessor of two evils.
Offensive licensors, again, the real problem, being that you only
care for
licence violating users, and not for the upstream authors right,
there is no
licence in this.
I barely understand your words here, sorry. I care for licence-obeying
users being able to continue using the software legally, even if the
licensor becomes offensive. I'm not particularly worried about licence
violators.
[...] none of the terms will ever come to any
problematic case in this particular package.
Imagine the developers you know and love being replaced with Evil
Copyright Trolls and deciding to attack their users. Would the
software still be free?
If upstream is overreacting in a protective way, let's them do it,
especially
if both we and the FSF agreed to it 3-4 years ago when they chose this
licence.
When did the FSF agree to the ocaml licence?
If we change our stand at whims, what guarantee do upstream have that
our position will last ? [...]
I think this thread suggests it is anything but whimsical.
Hehe. I am not in the AM queue, so i can be as rude as i want. [...]
Your AM should still be ashamed of your rudeness.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL;
Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast
Reply to: