Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 12:08:54AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: >>I am working on it. In the mean time, let me present the authors >>argument for the QPL. He is basically afraid of a fork, which he >>argues is easier than cooperation. He's probably right. He wants >>there to be one libcwd, and only one libcwd, and no "competition" >>from projects building up on years of his work. >> >>I can completely understand this line of reasoning, and I find it >>hard to argue against that. If you have convincing arguments, share >>them with me (or just post them here, I sent the thread link to the >>author). > > Freedom to fork is completely fundamental to free software; this is > integral to DFSG#3. Allowing other authors to "compete" using your > source is also fundamental to free software. > > I don't quite understand this, though: the QPL doesn't prevent forking. If > it did, there would probably be a much more serious DFSG-freeness problem.
The QPL doesn't prevent forking, but the requirement to distribute changes to the original source as patches makes a fork significantly more difficult. This restriction of the QPL is DFSG-free, but the other restrictions, such as giving the author your changes if they ask, are not DFSG-free. Unfortunately, I don't know of a good example of a Free Software license with a "patch clause". >>You and I, we agree that the QPL should go away and be replaced by >>a truly free licence. However, unless we find a licence that >>accomodates DFSG-freeness and the author's wish for legal protection >>against forks, it's going to be hard. > > These goals are completely incompatible. Legal "protection" against forks, meaning a prohibition on forking, would be inherently non-free. However, it is quite possible for a Free license to make forks difficult or cumbersome without crossing the line into non-free territory. Such a license is not ideal, of course, much like the original BSD license is not ideal, but any Free license is better than any non-free license. >>I have proposed to him to consider creating a license of his own, >>which would basically allow everything except the incoporation of >>the code into another project with the same goals as libcwd. We'll >>see what comes. > > This would be DFSG-unfree. Agreed. I think a copyleft license that included a "patch clause" would probably satisfy the author while remaining DFSG-free. However, it should also be suggested to the author that in the case of a library, it is in his best interests to make his license GPL-compatible, if he wants to encourage widespread usage. Otherwise, any prospective developers who want to use the library must either not use a copyleft license, get all copyright holders to agree on an exception clause, or simply not use the library. Considering the sheer volume of GPLed software, using a non-GPL-compatible license on a library seems likely to discourage widespread usage. - Josh Triplett
