Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:45:07PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> 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?
The licence specifically says "you must supply one", referring to a copy of
the software. Technically, if you have previously provided a copy of the
software, you have fulfilled the obligation to "supply one [copy of the
software]".
That being said, there is the alternate interpretation that for every
request received, you must supply one, and that is a perfectly valid
interpretation of the licence. If the user took the former interpretation,
and the licensor took the latter, it's off to the courthouse to get it all
argued about.
Again, it's a matter to be clarified with the licensor. I certainly
wouldn't want to be bound by the terms of the licence with that ambiguity
hanging over it.
- Matt
Reply to: