On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:23:30PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > 1) QPL 3b. A is allowed to integrate changes from M into the original > > > software in both the QPL licence and some other licence it is dually > > > licenced with (GPL or proprietary). The claim that this fails DFSG #1 > > > has > > > been made, if you consider this right a fee or royalty. > > > > | 3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your > > | modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as > > | patches. The following restrictions apply to modifications: > > > > This covers modification of the original software. Only path (or patch-like) > > distribution is allowed here. This is expressely allowed by DFSG #4. > > > > | a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices > > | in the Software. > > > > Again, pretty standard. > > Actually, I just realized this might be a problem. Files often have > copyright notices in them. You can't have a patch which entirely > removes those files. > > Also, the program may print out a copyright notice (as in GPL 3c). > You are not allowed to add your own name to that list.
I suppose common sense clearly solve this issue, but would a modification of the clause solve this ? It is too early for me to find any nice wording for this today though. Friendly, Sven Luther
