Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:24:35PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-07-21 09:32:39 +0100 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
> >This interpretation of TV broadcast was only dreamed in the mind of a
> >bunch of
> >would be lawyers here, who didn't even bother to really read the QPL,
> >and
> >didn't even bother to ask a real lawyer, or even a juridic student or
> >something, about the thing.
>
> Are you sure about this? As far as I can tell, a notice published in a
> newspaper is regarded as "effective notification" if it meets some
In international IP/copyright/contract law ? I have serious doubts about
this.
> standards. These are commonly used for public notices about product
> defects and are even required for certain types of government notice.
> Most commonly, consultation notices, as in s39 of [2001] EWHC Admin
> 310 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2001/310.html
Care to get some real legal advice supporting that fact ?
> I'm not sure any of us have said that this would stick in court, but
> some of us are worried because of the acceptance of things like
> broadcast notices in newspapers in many other fields. Trying to pin
Well, we can worry about so many things that it would paralize any action we
may take. Is this a reasonable worry ? Do you seriously expect a judge to
accept that a newspaper notice in some remote country is binding to you ?
> down exactly what the law is here is difficult, as I don't have many
> legal texts and there's no law library to find more. I suspect this is
> uncontroversial, as I can't find recent cases directly discussing it.
> Unfortunately, it's not common enough to feature in web-based law
> explanations, as far as I can tell.
In any case, the real point is :
If you are able to make a lawsuit against someone, claiming he didn't cumply
with a broadcaster request, what will you answer to the judge when he asks
you why you don't just plain send that guy a letter ?
> >And, i repeat, i will _NOT_ go upstream with bullshit and laughable
> >requests
> >who have no legal founding, this is the most sure way to shot myself
> >in the
> >foot and break years of good relationship with upstream.
>
> I think it was right out of order for the lawyer you asked just to
> laugh at you and apparently not give any pointers that you could use
He didn't laugh at me, but at the idea of TV-broadcast request.
> to explain it. If that is the environment in which you usually live,
> maybe that is why you seem so abrasive on this list and don't give
> many helpful explanations.
Well, my abrasiveness has been trained by years of participating in debian
mailing list, so you get only yourself to blame.
> If you value your friendship with upstream so much, maybe that is
> colouring your view, too. I'm not saying that friendship is a bad
> thing, but you should be aware of it.
Well, serious now, would you go to your upstream with such ridicoulous claims ?
I would have nothing against it, but the burden is on dbeian-legal to provide
solid legal foundation for these request, just having a bunch of
would-be-lawyers make half-backed outrageous requests is not going to cut it,
and threatens the credibility of debian-legal as whole.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: