On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 09:05:40AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > >>[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 > > ? > > Do you see anything in the QPL that says the original developer can only > request your changes once? They can ask twelve times a day if they
Well, whatever is the problem ? You provide it to them, and if they ask you again, you either say, sorry, i sent it to you already, and haven't got a backup copy, would you like the latest version perhaps ? If you already fullfilled the request before you are asked, where is the problem. And in any way, your lack of maintenance of a source release archive won't make the licence non-free. I agree that it is a pain though, but hardly enough to make it non-free. > want, and you have to comply; there is nothing in the license that says > otherwise. For that matter, do you see anything in the QPL that says > the original developer has to compensate you for the costs of providing > your changes (bandwidth charges for network distribution, or media costs > for physical distribution)? Yes, since the distribution will happen accordying to 6a, which says you can charge for the cost of data transfer. > [Do you want both of your email addresses CCed on these mails?] Not really, but i prefer more of them than none at all, as hiting D is easier than reading mail in lynx. Friendly, Sven Luther
