On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:42:29AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > Well, i wonder if this is as dramatic as it seems, since after all it only > furthers the distribution of the source code, and it is only fair that the > original author, whose work was freely given away so that the work linked with > the library did happen, could get the code back.
I have to dispute this use of the term "freely". "Freely" means "requiring nothing in return" (i.e., "without fee"). The QPL clearly *does* require something in return, it requires access to source code of any works derived from the original work. It is for this reason that I don't believe any license which requires distributing source code to upstream is free by my personal standards, and don't believe it should be considered free under Debian's, either. There are many licenses an author might use which are fair, and which are reasonable for the author to wish to use, but which are nevertheless non-free. > Aslo, since it is only a copy of the code, it doesn't really cost > anything to the modifier, so i wonder if it could be considered as a > fee. This is not true. Source disclosure can sometimes be very costly -- if not in terms of a competitive advantage one expects to maintain over competitors, then in terms of the internal expense of getting 5 different lawyers and 3 managers review the request and sign off on it. The value of source code -- or control of it -- is at the core of software IP laws, which are the framework in which Debian operates. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
