On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 03:20:00PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I entirely fail to understand the difference here. > > It's that one is to the recipient, and the other is to recipient and > upstream.
Why does that result in one being a fee and the other not being a fee? If I distribute under GPL 3(b) and someone then distributes that under 3(c) I'm bound to pass on my valuable modifications to people I didn't provide binaries to myself. How is that not a fee? Why is upstream special? > In the case of the QPL, you have to give the initial author many more > rights with the software than you had -- he can take it proprietary, > and you can't. Also, no matter who you want to give those > modifications to, you have to give that broad license to the upstream. Right. Why is this non-free? Base your answer on the DFSG. Appeals to nebulous concept of "platonic non-freeness" will be rejected. Answers should cover at least 3 sides and take 10 minutes. (5 marks). -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
