On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:27:29PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:17:51AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > >> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:12:57AM -0800, D. Starner wrote: > >> >> Sven Luther writes: > >> >> > >> >> > Sorry, but i don't believe such a request is legally binding. > >> >> > >> >> I do. More to the point, neither of us is the judge who's going to > >> > > >> > Well, as said, i did some legal consulting, and the mention that a TV > >> > broadcasted request for patches should be legally binding did bring in > >> > some > >> > round of laughter. > >> > >> Did you explain to your legal advisor that this is a broadcast request > >> in the context where you're operating within a license obliging you to > >> obey such requests? > > > > Yeah, sure. It is not binding. > > Then you can safely ask upstream to remove it from the license, right? > Then we don't have to worry about it. A shorter, simpler license can > only be a good thing.
Now, stop being stupid. Nowhere in the licence is there mention of a generic TV broadcast request for all patches, any legal knowledgeable person would clearly interpret this as an in person request for a specific patch. Also, since it doesn't really apply to patches, but works that link with the original library or modified library, it is not really a patch at cause here. This interpretation of TV broadcast was only dreamed in the mind of a bunch of would be lawyers here, who didn't even bother to really read the QPL, and didn't even bother to ask a real lawyer, or even a juridic student or something, about the thing. And, i repeat, i will _NOT_ go upstream with bullshit and laughable requests who have no legal founding, this is the most sure way to shot myself in the foot and break years of good relationship with upstream. So, if you are so intent on providing advice on this, please go read a few law books, and ask around, before dreaming up more such bogus interpretations and asking me to relay them. > >> > Furthermore, i was mentioned the fact that the request should be > >> > nominal, both to the modificator and the actual patch involved, > >> > >> I apologize, but I cannot understand what you mean by a request being > >> nominal to the modifier or the patch. Where does this idea of > >> "nominal"ness appear in the QPL? > > > > You Brian, i know that you modified my work with patch foo. As the QPL point > > 6c mentions, i request from you that you send me the changes in question. > > > > In a formal letter, sent as recomande awith avis de reception in france, so > > you get proof not only that it arrived, but your signature in the avis de > > reception. But then, i guess a fedex or DHL or whatever such sending would > > do > > too. > > > > This is the way i imagine a legally binding request, and the way such > > business > > is conducted here. And i send such recomande avec avis de reception, for all > > critical stuff, including employer disputes, house contract resignation and > > such. > > Ah! So if they put the source code to the ocaml compiler up there, > with the QPL, is that not binding either? How can this copyright > license be valid if it is not given to me by name? Because by using or modifying the software, you agree to it. There is indeed some doubt about a generic eula like microsoft's to be legal, since you have no other choice but to agree, but i doubt it will apply here. But now, do your home work, consult a lawyer, read some legal basic books and then come back. I have done so, and you still don't believe the information i have been told. But this is no reason you should continue here with your bogus interpretation. Friendly, Svne Luther > > -Brian > > -- > Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
