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

Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL

Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net>:
>>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
>>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)?
>>- Josh Triplett
>>[Do you want both of your email addresses CCed on these mails?]
> I recommend CCing both of them twelve times a day for good measure.

As amusing as that comment is, it isn't really appropriate; he does have
a valid concern about being kept in the loop, and I certainly don't mind
doing so.

> finely honed legal arguments like the above!

Thank you very much. :)

> I think contracts often don't specify things like how rapidly a letter
> must be answered, etc, so people apply established standards and
> common sense. I don't know what the standard would be in this case,
> but maybe 28 days would be an appropriate time for responding to a
> request for changes, and common sense says you can ignore further
> requests while dealing with the first request, so maybe you would have
> to send your changes every 28 days. Still, if you're a Chinese
> Dissident stranded on a Desert Island that could be quite a burden ...

It would certainly be nice if licenses were interpreted by reasonable
people who apply common sense, but unfortunately they often end up being
interpreted by nitpicky lawyers instead. :)

- Josh Triplett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: