Sven Luther wrote: > 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. >From the QPL: > c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the > initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, > then you must supply one. Where in there does it say that you may refuse to supply a copy if you have already provided one? >>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. >From the QPL: > c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the > initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, > then you must supply one. Where in there does it say that the copy you supply to the initial developer is covered by the terms of 6.a? 6.a only covers recipients who have a binary and want the source. In this case, if you are distributing source (that is not available to the general public), then the source is one of the "items" in question, and it must be provided under 6.c, which does not indicate that you may charge for cost of distribution. >>[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. No problem; I'll continue to CC luther@debian.org on all of my mails related to the QPL discussions. (Are you using webmail through lynx?) - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature