Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [ 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?
Supplying source *with a binary I'm already distributing* is not a fee. But if I demand that you provide me with copies of all the software you've written, even that which you kept secret, that's clearly not free. If I demand that when you give a copy of software to some third party, you send me a copy and a license, that's not free. It would not be free for Emacs' license to demand that anything written with Emacs be sent to the FSF with a license for them to copy or modify it as they see fit. >>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. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
