MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 2004-07-15 02:01:55 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: >> Of course distribution is of interest to the original developer. The >> original >> recipient (who I provided the software to) is making a copy of >> something that >> I put effort into without necessarily giving me anything in return. > >While this is the case for free software, isn't the problem that QPL >requires us to give something to the original developer in return?
I don't see why that's a problem. Remember that the context is "Why is forced provision of distributed modifications more acceptable than forced provision of undistributed modifications". >> In what way does it serve free software to allow people to hoard >> modifications rather than allow the community to take advantage of >> them? > >It also seems to allow software to develop in sheltered communities >without interference from an obnoxious original developer. If it is >good, it will probably escape from the shelter. If the sheltered community isn't breaking any laws, then the worst that the obnoxious original developer can do is be nasty to them. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
