[ I've been watching the QPL discussion with some interest and, dare I say it, hilarity. This just has to be replied to... ]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: > >The problem comes from these three clauses: > > 3b. When modifications to the Software are released under this > license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the > initial developer of the Software to distribute your > modification in future versions of the Software provided such > versions remain available under these terms in addition to any > other license(s) of the initial developer. > > 6b. You must explicitly license all recipients of your items to > use and re-distribute original and modified versions of the > items in both machine-executable and source code forms. The > recipients must be able to do so without any charges whatsoever, > and they must be able to re-distribute to anyone they choose. > > 6c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the > initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, > then you must supply one. > >That is, I owe two fees to the initial developer of the software. >First, I give him a license to distribute my modifications in future >versions of the software, and to use that code in non-free derivatives >of the software. Second, if he asks for it I also supply a copy even >if I have not distributed them to anyone. This is a fee as described >by DFSG #1. *snort* This is just getting comical now. Since when is supplying a copy of source considered a fee? >Additionally, 6b requires that I license my modifications to others >under a *more* permissive license than the QPL. Those to whom I give >my items (presumably meaning my modifications) must be licensed to >distribute modified copies without charge, and the QPL imposes a >charge. Since I can't distribute my modifications under the same terms >as the license of the original software, this also fails DFSG #3. If you believe your argument about source requirements constituting a fee, yes. In the real world, no. Try that in court and you'll get laughed at. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression: http://www.eff.org/cafe/
