On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 09:25:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:44:16PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > >> >> He doesn't need to learn of the patch first in the case of the generic > >> >> call. Additionally, the idea is not to help users get away with as > >> > > >> > Well, i am somehow doubtfull that sucha generic call is legally binding, > >> > so > >> > your point is moot. How can upstream guarantee that the modifier did > >> > receive > >> > the call and convince the judge of it ? > >> > >> Can you provide any evidence that such a generic call not legally > >> binding? Or are you just somehow doubtful, without any reason? > > > > Well, this is common sense, so i guess it would be upto you to prove the > > contrary. But don't fear i will be getting legal advice this afternoon, > > altough not IP specific one, and i will tell you what comes of it. > > I'm claiming that the license should be read as saying what it plainly > says, and that other implied conditions should not be read into it. > I'm perfectly willing to believe such implied conditions should be > read -- but I want to see evidence of such. The claim that it's > common sense, when that position appears uniquely yours, is unpersuasive.
Please read and reponsd to the other thread i started. I asked for legal advice, even if not specialized one, on this subject, and the reply i got confirmed my intuition. Now, it is your turn to find legal evidence to contradict it. > >> I'd settle for "I think I heard once that..." evidence right now. > > > >> >> much as possible. It is desirable that users be able to do the right > >> >> thing, abide by the wishes of authors completely, and still have > >> >> freedom with respect to the software. > >> > > >> > Yeah, whatever, and you are the holder of the only true way, right ? > >> > > >> >> So we can't just suggest that users pretend they never heard the > >> >> generic call for patches, or the invocation of a termination clause. > >> > > >> > Well, sure we can. And before you disagree, i encourage you to make some > >> > legal > >> > research, if basic common-sense doesn't apply to you. > >> > >> So you're suggesting that the QPL is free because we can tell users to > >> disregard the authors wishes, disregard what the license says, just > >> shut your ears and wait for them to take you into court? > > > > No, i am saying no such thing, please give me detailed explanation on how > > you > > read this in my previous post. > > Well, see, I said this: > > So we can't just suggest that users pretend they never heard the > generic call for patches, or the invocation of a termination clause. > > And then you said this: > > Well, sure we can. > > So that seems to be a pretty direct suggestion that we tell users to > ignore the license and the requests of the author. Oh, whatever, pelase read my newly started thread, and see if you still have objections to it. Friendly, Sven Luther
