[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL



Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Under the GPL, the government can just pass a law requiring that all
>> distributed source code be provided to the government.
>
>Except that there are no such governments.  Get back to me when that
>actually happens.

If there were such a government, would you question the GPL's freedom?

>> The dissident test isn't about dissidents, because it only applies in an
>> unrealistically narrow case. It's about privacy, and it should just say
>> that rather than bothering to mention the poor abused dissidents at all.
>
>I don't understand why you think the example is unrealistically
>narrow.  I'm sure that the author of DeCSS would not be happy to have
>to make any more communications concerning DeCSS, considering the
>amount of legal harassment Jon Johansen suffered.

The author of DeCSS has (if my recollection is correct) managed to stay
fairly anonymous despite the source being publically distributed. He'd
have nothing to fear if it had been under the QPL.

>Phil Zimmerman might also have preferred to be a bit more anonymous.
>Moreover, the statute of limitations for what he has been charged with
>has run out, but copyright certainly hasn't.  So if he had not
>complied with a software license, he could still be prosecuted for
>copyright infringement.

People might prefer to stay anonymous. What does this have to do with
freedom?

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org



Reply to: