Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On 2004-07-21 13:14:19 +0100 Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:24:35PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
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.
It works in various cases, so why not this one?
Care to get some real legal advice supporting that fact ?
No. I have a finite number of friends with legal training and I make
requests of them only when absolutely necessary. I'm quite OK with
remaining worried about this clause for now, as other things are worse
about it so should be resolved first.
[...] Do you seriously expect a judge to
accept that a newspaper notice in some remote country is binding to
you ?
No, but I suspect a newspaper notice in my country or region might be.
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 ?
I'm not interested in prosecuting this, but I would reply: It is not
required by law.
Well, my abrasiveness has been trained by years of participating in
debian
mailing list, so you get only yourself to blame.
Other people succeed in remaining polite after years here, although
there are a few exceptions. Try to be a success, not an exception.
Well, serious now, would you go to your upstream with such
ridicoulous claims
?
Probably, yes. I would tell them that this has worried debian-legal
and it would be good to rebut or resolve this.
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.
Again, not helpful. If you want to push it, the "burden" is on QPL'rs
to get consensus about why/how this follows the DFSG, if they want
QPL'd works in debian. There are threats to the credibility of this
list, but I don't think discussion is one. The abusive behaviour of
contributors might be, or if we just accepted proof by assertion, that
would be far worse.
Personally, I find OSI's "get the licensor's lawyer to justify
acceptance" approach far more incredible. So far, the lawyer is
probably not an affected free software developer or user, nor someone
with much experience of free software concepts.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL;
Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast
Reply to: