Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >>> >>>>I'd be particularly interested to hear your comments on the asymmetry >>>>issue, which is most closely tied to a DFSG point: I can't distribute >>>>modifications under the same license through which I received the >>>>software. The author used a license which gets him a license to use >>>>my modifications in a proprietary way, but I don't get such a license >>>>for *his* changes. >>> >>>Actually, you can distribute your changes under the same license: the >>>QPL. People who receive the software from you must grant you the same >>>more-permissive license to their changes as well. I do agree that the >>>QPL is full of asymmetry, but I don't think most of it is a DFSG >>>problem, apart from the "send changes upstream" clause and the "choice >>>of venue" clause. >> >> I don't think I can -- I have to distribute my changes as patches, so >> the "initial author" is still the author of the baseline work, not me. > > You are the initial author of your changes.
Then I cannot distribute them solely under the QPL -- I also have to give the initial author of the main program a license to do proprietary things with my changes, and I also have to give recipients of my code a charge-free license to modify and distribute my code. But the QPL is not a charge-free license, so I can't use that. I've seen some disagreement with one or the other component of that, but I haven't seen an argument which dealt with both parts together -- the license given to the upstream author and that given to downstream recipients. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
