Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:10:54PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Steve Langasek <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:14:44PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > > As another example, what if there were a jurisdiction where recipients
> > > > automatically receive the right to modify and distribute unless
> > > > otherwise explicitly specified. Then a simple "Copyright (C) 2000
> > > > Steve Langasek" would be free.
> > > The difference between this and the prior example is that in the
> > > first case, the *government* has additional rights over the
> > > software, whereas in the second case, it is the *author* who has
> > > lesser rights over (control of) the software. Yes, in this
> > > hypothetical jurisdiction, a mere copyright statement would be free;
> > > but we are concerned about freedom at the international level, so we
> > > need to take a "least common denominator" look at the rights of
> > > copyright holders.
> > So if the lowest common denominator (i.e. the law in all countries)
> > became
> > "If you distribute something under the GPL, you must give the
> > government a copy"
> > would the GPL be free?
> As a practical consideration, if the requirement extends beyond what
> we're already doing for crypto-in-main (e.g., if it requires us to send
> the government a copy *every time* someone downloads), I think we would
And even that, i think is not acceptable. Already our current policy to inform
the US governement of every contribution a member makes is an dangerous
privacy concern. And if you would go the chinese dissident way (or maybe the
iraqui freedom figther way :), a maintainer could get in trouble over this