Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Because he doesn't just want to distribute them to the rest of the > world. He also wants to turn them into a proprietary product and sell > them! The BSD license is "fair" (a term invented for use here): it > offers lots of permission, and asks nothing. It's more generous than > "fair". The GPL is "fair": it offers many permissions, but some of > them can only be exercised if you pass the same permissions on to > others. That is, it's a copyleft. But it's probably the most > restrictive you can be and still be "fair". > > The QPL isn't even close to that line of "fair"ness: It is a copyleft > which requires that even more permissions be granted to the initial > author. I get some rights to the initial author's code, but he > insists that I give him not only the same rights to my code (which > would be a "fair" copyleft), but much more. > > I don't think this idea of "fair"ness is explicit in the DFSG right > now, but it's an important component of Freedom. It's also a superset > of DFSG 1. In some ways, it's implied by DFSG 1, but it could be made > more clear. I think it's possible to write this in a couple ways -- > concentrating on the symmetry, or on the lack of demands on the > licensee. Does anybody have strong feelings as to which way is more fruitful?
Just a note: I think the requirement to give the original author a more permissive license is OK, just obnoxious. The only part I have a problem with is the requirement to distribute your changes to the original author on request, and I would have a problem with that even if the original author could only use those changes under the QPL. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
