On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:13:31PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:02:21PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 06:37:29PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Still, in this matter we need to find a balance between the right of the > > > > developer (who don't wish people to use the software in disrespect of > > > > the > > > > licence) and the wish of users who want to do modifications, and as > > > > long as > > > > they respect the licence, should not be furthermore molested. > > > > > > > > The fear of harassment only comes for someone who is willingly breaking > > > > the > > > > licence, and seriously, do we want to encourage those ? > > > > > > Or anyone who can be accused of breaking the license. And in order to > > > show you aren't, you would need to show up in the licensor's jurisdiction. > > > > Well, this may work in the US, where trigger happy legal action is comon > > place, as shown by the RIAA-sues-the world news we commonly get. > > What procedures do you have in place in France to ensure that ultimately > unsuccessful lawsuits don't get started? > > > > > And finally, i know the upstream authors personnally, and i also > > > > understand > > > > their situation enough to know that they won't engage in any such > > > > harrasment, > > > > even if it was possible. > > > > > > I can understand that. However, we cannot say "the QPL is Free because > > > the non-Free clauses will not be executed by one particular user of the > > > QPL". Furthermore, if upstream has no intention of engaging in such > > > harrassment, perhaps they could be persuaded to waive the clause that > > > gives them the ability to do so. (Yes, I do understand that upstream > > > does not like to deal with licensing issues.) > > > > And where exactly does the DFSG make this non-free ? > > DFSG #14: Just because the Debian maintainer doesn't think a non-free term > will be exercised, doesn't make the non-free term magically disappear. Nor > does wandering into debian-legal, sticking his fingers in his ears, and > shouting "laa laa laa! I can't hear you! Your arguments are bogus!" make > the non-free term go away, either.
Please respond in a reasonable non-bullshit way to the new thread i have started, and play the subthread rules, which i was encouraged to adopt to make the matter more concise. Friendly, Sven Luther
