Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:27:29PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:17:51AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:12:57AM -0800, D. Starner wrote:
> >> >> Sven Luther writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Sorry, but i don't believe such a request is legally binding.
> >> >>
> >> >> I do. More to the point, neither of us is the judge who's going to
> >> >
> >> > Well, as said, i did some legal consulting, and the mention that a TV
> >> > broadcasted request for patches should be legally binding did bring in some
> >> > round of laughter.
> >>
> >> Did you explain to your legal advisor that this is a broadcast request
> >> in the context where you're operating within a license obliging you to
> >> obey such requests?
> >
> > Yeah, sure. It is not binding.
>
> Then you can safely ask upstream to remove it from the license, right?
> Then we don't have to worry about it. A shorter, simpler license can
> only be a good thing.
Erm, I think you've gone over the top there. Sven is saying that an attempt
to gather all linked works to the software by broadcasting an ad saying "I am
hereby requesting a copy of all linked works of program <foo> under clause
6c of the QPL, which applies to program <foo>" is non-binding. It's a big
leap from there to "if the author writes me a certified letter saying 'I
want a copy of the source of library X linked to your copy of program
<foo>', it's non-binding".
One thing that still bothers me about this, and I haven't seen a good
rebuttal of it yet, is why we're so keen to use the law to void out a clause
in the licence because it's unenforcable. I've mentioned it before and had
it danced around, but I still don't see why we shouldn't be honouring the
author's wishes as expressed in his chosen licence.
I can't particularly see the use of the clause anyway, though. Since
everything linked to the QPL'd program needs to be QPL (well, maybe), you
need to give the recipient a copy of the source anyway. 6c is just a "we'll
keep it free for you" from the initial developer, which I'd hope we can do
away with. I've never heard of a missing library being a problem for
anything under the GPL. So I don't see why INRIA wouldn't pull it, unless
they are actually planning on enforcing that clause to devious ends.
> >> > Furthermore, i was mentioned the fact that the request should be
> >> > nominal, both to the modificator and the actual patch involved,
> >>
> >> I apologize, but I cannot understand what you mean by a request being
> >> nominal to the modifier or the patch. Where does this idea of
> >> "nominal"ness appear in the QPL?
> >
> > You Brian, i know that you modified my work with patch foo. As the QPL point
> > 6c mentions, i request from you that you send me the changes in question.
Interesting that Sven now thinks that 6c applies to modifications, too, not
just linked works. Sven, care to comment on your change of heart?
> > In a formal letter, sent as recomande awith avis de reception in france, so
> > you get proof not only that it arrived, but your signature in the avis de
> > reception. But then, i guess a fedex or DHL or whatever such sending would do
> > too.
> >
> > This is the way i imagine a legally binding request, and the way such business
> > is conducted here. And i send such recomande avec avis de reception, for all
> > critical stuff, including employer disputes, house contract resignation and
> > such.
>
> Ah! So if they put the source code to the ocaml compiler up there,
> with the QPL, is that not binding either? How can this copyright
> license be valid if it is not given to me by name?
I think you need some sleep, Brian. Your arguments here aren't up to your
usual standard. I think I know what you're trying to say -- that because
the licence doesn't say "I give you, Brian Thomas Sniffen, a licence to this
work under the terms of the QPL, as shown below", the licence is not valid,
because I need to say "Brian Thomas Sniffen, I want the source to library X
linked to your copy of program <foo>".
The difference is, I think, that expressing your wishes in the form of a
permission grant is deemed OK by the powers that be, while trying to
exercise the terms of the licence requires a bit more selectivity. Similar,
I imagine, to licencing your work as opposed to copyright assignment.
- Matt
Reply to: