Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>I would agree entirely with that assessment. I personally only have a >>problem with the forced distribution clause, and not the all-permissive >>license to the original developer. I think the requirement for an >>all-permissive license is obnoxious, but still Free. > > If it were only an all-permissive license contingent on distribution > *to that person*, that would be fine. The compulsive license even if > that person doesn't have a copy is not Free. > > For example, let's say I give some software under the QPL to Alice. I > also give it under the GPL to Bob. Alice doesn't propagate hers, and > tells me this. Bob does propagate his. It gets back to the initial > developer, INRIA. Now INRIA has my code, with a permissive license I > didn't want to give them!
Agreed. It is only acceptable for the permissive license to apply if the developer receives the code through one or more voluntary distributions starting from you, all under the QPL (or whatever license the original developer used). - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
