On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 07:44:58PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > Matthew Palmer writes: > > > Having slept on it, I've decided that in the specific case of the QPL, this > > particular situation is not a problem for Debian, but ONLY because we can > > avoid the whole issue by making the items in question available to the > > general public (which we do). > > The QPL doesn't release you from the obligation to provide changes to > the author if you have since stopped distributing the software (for > whatever reason). That clause applies to *any* time at which the code > is not available to the general public. It would be plausible for an > SCO or Microsoft to demand that a Debian package maintainer provide a > three-year-old version of a package because Debian users downloaded > that modified version.
An excellent point, and well made. Thankyou for reminding me of this. My objection to this clause is re-established. > [snip] > > We're taking a similar path with the GPL, anyway -- the non-freeness of 3b > > and 3c is OK because we're distributing under 3a. By analogy, the > > non-freeness of compelled unrelated distribution of linked items is OK(ish) > > because we're taking the "publically available" route. > > The GPL is qualitatively different because it bounds the time during > which you must act to comply with the license: Either immediately, if > you make the source code available at time of transfer, or for the > next three years, if you only make the binary code available. The QPL > obligations do not terminate. Ayup. I had these vague feelings that the GPL and QPL situations weren't entirely comparable; I think the timeframe issue was what it was (either that or the Quesadilla I had last night <grin>). > It may also be qualitatively different because the upstream author > gets a symmetric license and cannot compel downstream modifiers to > provide changes; but that is a different discussion. I think you meant asymmetric, but yes, that is a different discussion. I tried to ensure that it was understood that my change in reasoning was only related to 6c; I still think that the asymmetric licence problem, as well as the choice of venue, are problematic. And, with your excellent reminder, I now think 6c is a problem again too. - Matt
