[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >>> > So if the developer is just doing it for himself, then the clause >>> > doesn't apply. >>> >>> Let's go through this again:- >>> >>> `These items, when distributed, are subject ..' >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >>So if I give a copy to my wife for review, that triggers this. > > If the upstream author asks you about it. For that to happen, first your wife > needs to inform him about the change, so he gains knowledge of it.
Or he can publish a request that anyone with changes send them to him. It doesn't say the request has to be personal or private. > Also, on a moral ground, how would you justify taking free source code, making > your own modifications, and refusing those modifications to upstream, even > though he could integrate it in the original source, and make it available to > the rest of the world ? That sounds like bastardly egoist on your part. (err, > your not meant personally here, just to be clear). Because he doesn't just want to distribute them to the rest of the world. He also wants to turn them into a proprietary product and sell them! The BSD license is "fair" (a term invented for use here): it offers lots of permission, and asks nothing. It's more generous than "fair". The GPL is "fair": it offers many permissions, but some of them can only be exercised if you pass the same permissions on to others. That is, it's a copyleft. But it's probably the most restrictive you can be and still be "fair". The QPL isn't even close to that line of "fair"ness: It is a copyleft which requires that even more permissions be granted to the initial author. I get some rights to the initial author's code, but he insists that I give him not only the same rights to my code (which would be a "fair" copyleft), but much more. I don't think this idea of "fair"ness is explicit in the DFSG right now, but it's an important component of Freedom. It's also a superset of DFSG 1. In some ways, it's implied by DFSG 1, but it could be made more clear. I think it's possible to write this in a couple ways -- concentrating on the symmetry, or on the lack of demands on the licensee. Does anybody have strong feelings as to which way is more fruitful? -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
