Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:05:40AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >>luther@debian.org writes:
> >>>Well, simply configuring your SVN/CVS/ARCH/Whatever archive to spam upstream
> >>>with every change done should resolve all the issue. Or maybe giving him
> >>>consultation access would be enough.
> >>
> >>Spamming upstream is not enough. You have to provide one on request,
> >>even if you just sent one. Additionally, now you're suggesting doing
> >>away with the ability to make private modifications.
> >
> > Bullshit, you have provided it before it was asked, so where is the problem ?
>
> Do you see anything in the QPL that says the original developer can only
> request your changes once? They can ask twelve times a day if they
Well, whatever is the problem ? You provide it to them, and if they ask you
again, you either say, sorry, i sent it to you already, and haven't got a
backup copy, would you like the latest version perhaps ? If you already
fullfilled the request before you are asked, where is the problem.
And in any way, your lack of maintenance of a source release archive won't
make the licence non-free. I agree that it is a pain though, but hardly enough
to make it non-free.
> want, and you have to comply; there is nothing in the license that says
> otherwise. For that matter, do you see anything in the QPL that says
> the original developer has to compensate you for the costs of providing
> your changes (bandwidth charges for network distribution, or media costs
> for physical distribution)?
Yes, since the distribution will happen accordying to 6a, which says you can
charge for the cost of data transfer.
> [Do you want both of your email addresses CCed on these mails?]
Not really, but i prefer more of them than none at all, as hiting D is easier
than reading mail in lynx.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: