Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 08:59:04AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> 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.
Well, the 6 a-b mean you have to distribute it under a free + source licence
to the people you give it to. The 6c means that, upon request from the author,
you have to give it to him too, thus a forcefull distribution, which could be
considered as a royalty or fee, and thus break the DFSG 1).
Well, i wonder if this is as dramatic as it seems, since after all it only
furthers the distribution of the source code, and it is only fair that the
original author, whose work was freely given away so that the work linked with
the library did happen, could get the code back. Aslo, since it is only a copy
of the code, it doesn't really cost anything to the modifier, so i wonder if
it could be considered as a fee.
> > >> > 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?
Err, no, i still think as above, but this thread was started before i realized
that, and i didn't change it to the more clumsier wording. Maybe even the part
you quote here predates my realisation of the real meaning of section 6.
> > > 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.
Well, i think the real difference is that by using and modifying the original
work, you clearly exert the rights given to you by the licence, so you would
have a real hard time saying you didn't read it, or it didn't reach you.
While a generic TV broadcast, well, you could have gone fishing that day, or
as a principle don't look TV, or your spam filters could have catched it in
the case of a spamed general broadcast. I don't say here that you should lie
to the judge, but that you genuinely didn't hear about the general broadcast,
so i believe that the judge hearing from the upstream author trying to sue you
over it, that why he don't plain send you a written request and stop loosing
its time ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: