On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 09:51:42PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 05:53:14 -0400 (EDT) Walter Landry wrote: > > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So this solves most of the issues, and we need to go through the QPL > > > 3b again, but upstream feels it is a reasonable clause, and would > > > like to keep it. > > > > I'm sure that anyone would love to have that kind of term in a > > license. It still feels non-free to me. > > Agreed: I'm another one who feels that QPL 3b is non-free. > > It forces me to grant to the initial developer more rights to my code > than he/she granted me to his/her own code.
Easy, you place your patch under the QPL, and then if upstream applies the patch, he clearly makes a modification of your work, and gives you the same right back with regard of the original software, so it is not non-free, but not really what upstream expected in the first place. > I feel that this does not satisfy DFSG 3, because I'm allowed to > distribute my modifications "under the same terms as the license of the > original software" to anyone I like *but* to the initial developer. See above. > The initial developer automatically gets a more permissive license grant > for my modifications... But shall he apply your QPLed patch, you get the same right as he. Friendly, Sven Luther
