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

Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL



On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 07:41:55PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:18:28AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Where in it says you have to ?
> 
> Where in it says that you don't?  For my part, I can't see how either
> interpretation is more plausible than the other.
> 
> In this sort of situation we *can't* take the easy interpretation; if the
> least friendly plausible interpretation is non-free, we have to go down that
> path.  Optimism is dangerous.
> 
> > Please let's not forget common sense. 
> 
> Common sense is being used.  We're approaching this from a pessimistic,
> protection perspective.  You're approaching this from a "it has to stay
> free" perspective.

You are all using a paranoid, would be lawyer who really don't understand law
and thus fear everything kindof approach.

> > > >>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
> > 
> > Well, it is evident. The section 6 covers how you distribute these code
> > linking with the library. IF you distribute such code, you have to cumply to
> > all of a, b and c, is it not ? You don't see in the main header of 6 that you
> > have to satisfy one or the other, or you could safely ignore 6c and the whole
> > point would be moot.
> 
> All three subclauses have to be satisfied or judged to not apply.  6a
> doesn't apply to source-only distribution ("all recipients of

Ok.

> machine-executable forms").  6b applies to all distribution.  6c only
> applies if the items are private *and* the initial developer asks for a copy
> of the item.

Notice that it doesn't apply to private stuff, but only to not openly
distributed ones, please don't muddle the water.

> In the instance of applying 6c, we recurse through the licence, go through 6
> again, and *again* we don't apply 6a because the initial developer asks for
> a copy of the source.  Of course, the obvious loophole there is that the
> initial developer asks for a copy of the binary instead, in which instance
> 6a is invoked, and all's good.  But is charging for a binary instead? 
> Presumably it is, as otherwise the licence is non-commercial-only, and
> non-free, but there's no exception for the initial developer on that point,
> so I can charge the initial developer an unrealistic amount of money for my
> binary.

Ok, are you so sure of this that you would care to go before a judge with this
interpretation ? 

> > > 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.
> > 
> > Notice that 6c speaks about "copy of the items". How do you interpret this.
> 
> In the absence of clarification, I'd imagine it'd mean "a copy of the
> source", because the binary is of very limited use to the initial developer. 
> No binary means 6a doesn't apply.

And is the second phrase of the 6 header not clear enough, please reread it.

> > This has no meaning apart from the stuff described in the 6 header, that is : 
> > 
> >   You may develop application programs, reusable components and other
> >   software items that link with the original or modified versions of the
> >   Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following
> >   requirements:
> > 
> > These items clearly refer to "application programs, reusable components and
> > other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the
> > Software", and this clearly states that you have to cumply with all of the
> > following, 6a to 6c.
> 
> Comply or show as non-applicable.  In the same way that 6c doesn't apply to
> every act of distribution, 6a doesn't apply in all situations of
> distribution either.

Would you go before a judge with this interpretation ? What does you lawyer
say about this ? 

> > > >>[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?)
> > 
> > I have no choice, since i was not originally CCed, i have to go to the web
> > archive to read the discussion, get the url of emails i want to respon, launch
> > lynx over ssh on the box which does mail processing, open the url, go to
> > respond to or whatever link and send the mail.
> 
> Does copy-and-paste not exist on your system?

Thanks all the same, but the web url for replying don't seem to be accepted by
mutt, so please inform yourself before making sarcastic claims such as those.

Friendly,

Sven Luther



Reply to: