Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue
David Nusinow <david_nusinow@verizon.net> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 03:27:13PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> I haven't promised the FSF anything, but I distribute and modify their
>> software all the time. Maybe I don't agree to the GPL. Maybe,
>> someday, I'll fail to note my changes at the top of every file!
>> Bwahaha.
>>
>> And if I ever do that, what would they be able to do to me? Get mad
>> because I broke a promise? No. Get mad because I violated their
>> copyright? Yes. The GPL is not a promise I've made. It's an offer,
>> and a nonrevocable one at that, from them to everybody else.
>
> Then how does this differ from the QPL exactly? If you fail to comply with the
> terms of the license you're in violation of the copyright. You never made a
> promise to the lessor with the QPL by your interpretation of the word, so I see
> no difference here between the two licenses that would allow one to be non-free.
You brought up promises as fees, not me. The fees compelled by the
QPL are in the form of licenses to the initial author and distribution
to him, not promises to obey the license.
There is a promise -- a contract -- which comes into existence when I
distribute modifications. I promise to hold copies of those forever
in order to supply the initial author with copies on request.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: