martin f krafft wrote: <snip> > 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. Free software licenses must allow forks. Even if they discourage them. That's part of what it means to be 'free software' -- allowing someone else to make modified versions, *even if you don't want them to*.
Requiring proper copyright statements and acknowledgements of the original authors is normal and present in most free software licenses; and these requirements mean that any 'competition' will have to give him credit. This is enough for most people. :-) > 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). If he definitely doesn't want it to be under a DFSG-free license, then, well, that's what he wants. If he does want it to be under a DFSG-free license, he has to allow for the possibility of forks. A big "Please don't fork without offering me your code first; I consider it rude and counterproductive" notice is fine, of course. -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
