On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:51:46AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > I'll get to the other two in a bit, but for now: you completely failed > to address the non-freeness of 3b:
Well, in the orginal summary, there was no mention of 3b, so ... > b. When modifications to the Software are released under this > license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the > initial developer of the Software to distribute your > modification in future versions of the Software provided such > versions remain available under these terms in addition to any > other license(s) of the initial developer. > > which allows the initial developer to take code I've written and > distribute it in proprietary ways, even though I don't get that > privilege with respect to his code. Notice the part about : to distribute your modification in future versions of the Software provided such versions remain available under these terms in addition to any other license(s) of the initial developer. The change can only apply to future versions of the software, which are released under the QPL, and may also be licenced under some other licence. Notice what the annotated QPL has to say about this : This clause makes it possible for Trolltech to include patches in new versions of Qt. It also means that the same patches can be included in the Qt Professional Edition, but Trolltech are in turn required to ensure that those changes are in both versions. It is a bit unclear to me how they go from the exact text to the "... are in turn required to ensure that those changes are in both versions." Maybe a clarification of this in the licence would be welcome ? > Why are you justifying INRIA's code hoarding in this way? Given this interpetation, and the fact that any proprietary change must also appear in the QPLed version, how can you sustain claims of hoarding ? Friendly, Sven Luther
