Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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".
I'd be interested in your answer to that question, Matthew. So far, you've asked the same questions over and over needling at the answers to why forced contact on distribution is no more acceptable than forced contact on modification. And while you've made that argument stronger by doing so, it would be nice to either see an argument for why everyone should use forced-contact licenses, or why they're Free -- or a statement that you're just playing devil's advocate. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
