Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 09:25:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
>>
>> > 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'm claiming that the license should be read as saying what it plainly
>> says, and that other implied conditions should not be read into it.
>> I'm perfectly willing to believe such implied conditions should be
>> read -- but I want to see evidence of such. The claim that it's
>> common sense, when that position appears uniquely yours, is unpersuasive.
>
> Please read and reponsd to the other thread i started. I asked for legal
> advice, even if not specialized one, on this subject, and the reply i got
> confirmed my intuition. Now, it is your turn to find legal evidence to
> contradict it.
Yes, you say you got legal advice. But you don't say what it was!
Not even over there. The specifics of that advice make it useless.
Was it just for your jurisdiction? Well, choice-of-law makes that
OK.
Even so, how does the unenforceability of a license justify ignoring
the wishes of the author?
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: