Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Well, simply configuring your SVN/CVS/ARCH/Whatever archive to spam >> > upstream >> > with every change done should resolve all the issue. Or maybe giving him >> > consultation access would be enough. >> >> Spamming upstream is not enough. You have to provide one on request, >> even if you just sent one. Additionally, now you're suggesting doing >> away with the ability to make private modifications. > > Bullshit, you have provided it before it was asked, so where is the problem ? > > Also, about private modifications, 6c only applies to 'distributed' code, so > it in _NO_ way comes into play when doing private modifications.
But you suggested sending every change upstream to resolve this issue. I told you why that wouldn't work. Now you seem to be agreeing that it wouldn't work, for different reasons. So why did you suggest it in the first place? >> > The cost of hoarding the source of every version you have released may be >> > high, but it hardly makes the licence non-free. It is good practice anyway, >> > and maybe even elementary courtesy to the people you distribute the binary >> > to. >> >> And if my backups fail, and my drive is gone, what then? I can't >> comply with the license. > > Well, yes. The same applies with GPLed when using the 3 year clause though, > and the GPL is not non-free because of it. That's because we don't use the 3-year clause. We can choose not to use that, and still have freedom with respect to the software. We can't choose not to activate QPL 6 and still have freedom. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
