Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The QPL versions are fees because they are paid to the initial >> developer when I distribute to some third party. > > DFSG #1 does not talk about who receives the fee. If the license > required to pay $1 to the receiver of each copy, this would clearly be > a fee and a violation of that clause, but the original author would > not benefit from it.
This is true. I phrased my earlier statement very poorly. >> The Free copyleft equivalents are not fees, merely limited grants of >> permission to distribute. > > And the QPL requirements are not fees either, they merely limit the > grants of permission to modify? Fortunately, this part is the core, and I was correct. The QPL requirements are not limitations on modification -- they are requirements that if I modify in certain ways, I *must* then distribute and grant licenses. So my argument does not work both ways. -Brian > As you can see, your argument works both ways. 8-) > > (I'm not sure if the QPL pass all the other DFSG clauses, though.) -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
