Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 03:50:44PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> 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.
Well, in any case, it is ways better than what you are providing. So, i expect
you to shut up about this, or provide the same kind of weight behind your
words. I will not accept anymore wild speculation from your part that is
contrary to common sense, my own intuition, and my legal counsel.
> Even so, how does the unenforceability of a license justify ignoring
> the wishes of the author?
It does not, but that hardly make it non-free.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: