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