On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:55:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:42:43AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > Well can you propose a real example of what we are considering here ? An > > example for which upstream sues an random user over the QPL. Also such a > > case > > were we would honestly stand on the users said, and not say, he violated the > > licence, he deserves what he gets. > > Step 1) SCO buys (or wins in a lawsuit) the copyright to some QPL'ed > code we're distributing. (AIUI, even in Europe, copyrights can be > bought, sold, or contracted; as distinct from moral rights, which cannot > be.)
Well, SCO claimed the GPL was illegal, and threatens to sue everyone about the linux code. Do we remove the linux code base from debian/main because of it ? > Step 2) SCO uses this additional legal leverage to initiate wrongful > lawsuits against people who are distributing the QPLed code. Like they do for GPLed code. Again is the GPL non-free because of it ? > > And then, do you honestly believe such a case would happen, and that it is > > common enough for us to worry about it. > > How many users must be bankrupted by lawsuits before you consider it > "common enough" to worry about? One. I doubt there is such a one over the QPL, and i doubt there will be one in the future. > > > The bright line that most followers of debian-legal appear to conform to > > > is "the licenses say that you can exercise the freedoms listed in the > > > DFSG". > > > Ok, but the choice of venue issues stops none of those freedoms. > > > > This is not zero-risk, because nothing in life is zero-risk; the > > > copyright holder could be acting in bad faith, or you could be sued by a > > > third party for patent infringement, or even for copyright infringement. > > > The point is that we don't want our users to be exposed to risks *by the > > > license*. > > > So you are hiding behind hypothetical harrasing upstream authors, over a > > clause which may or may not be binding. > > You are hiding behind your belief in the infinite goodness of the > upstream authors. Our goal here is to protect our users, and the way to > do that is to assume the *worst* about the people they're exchanging > code with, not the best. Sure. Then no code would be free, and debian would collapse in itself. > If I hire someone to provide security for my home, and he surveys it, > looks at the open windows, looks at the door with no lock on it, and > tells me "Your home is secure, most people in the world are good and > won't try to rob you", should I be content with this? And ? Are we claiming "you are secure from bullshit lawsuits if you use all software in debian" ? How can you be secure from the actions of a madman ? There is no guarantee for this, so debian should stop distributing any software in fear of it. > > What if i sue debian because the GPL non-warranty close is illegal in my > > country ? As it seems to be the case in some european countries. Would that > > make the GPL non-free or dangerous for us to distribute ? > > The GPL warranty disclaimer is *void* in your country. That is not the So, i use the brand new debian installer, and autopartkit eats my harddisk (or the default erase all data partman option). I then go and sue debian over it, the waranty and non-damage clause being void, i win the lawsuit. Thus debian-installer is non-free, and we have to remove it. > same thing as it being *illegal* in your country. Please explain the > basis of the lawsuit you're bringing against Debian in this hypothetical > case. It is most likely a lawsuit that no change to the license could > protect us against without becoming non-free, and therefore out of scope > for questions of freeness. Same applies for legal harrasment and bullshit lawsuits. Friendly, Sven Luther
