On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 02:56:51PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > > >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. > > I think you would find it hard to gain consensus that "fee" should be > interpreted in this manner. The GPL requires that I provide either all > the source code, a written offer or alternatively information regarding > the written offer I obtained. A reading of "fee" that broad would cause > the GPL to fail on the same grounds. > > >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. > > I think that it would be even harder to claim that "charge" covers this. > > >On the other hand, perhaps my understanding of the DFSG is flawed. > >I've CC'd this to debian-legal, in the hopes that they can clarify. > > The main discussed issues with the QPL are: > > 1) It requires that distributed modifications be made available to > upstream if they request. This causes problems for people on desert > islands who want to distribute software and can't send changes upstream
Not really, since upstream will have as much trouble requesting the modifications, or even knowing about them, won't they ? :))) Friendly, Sven Luther
