Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen writes: > >> I think you've read "under this license" as meaning that I license my >> modifications to others under the QPL. I read it rather differently: >> I think that says that if I release modifications, and the license >> which allows me to release them is the QPL, then I must make this grant. >> >> That is, it's not talking about the license under which my changes are >> available to you, but about the license under which I perform the act >> of releasing: "modifications to the software are released under this >> license" > > If I follow your logic right, the condition "Modifications made to > this work must be licensed for unlimited reuse by the original author" > is non-free, but the condition "Modifications made to this work must > be licensed for unlimited reuse by INRIA" is free, since the latter > allows distribution of modifications under the same terms?
No. What I'm saying is this: * Licenses like the BSD/MIT/X11, which allow modifiers to distribute their changes under any license, are Free. Specifically, I can distribute my changes with the same permissions and restrictions under which I received the license. * Licenses like the GPL or BSDPL, which allow modifiers to distribute their changes only under that same license, are Free. That is, compelling a copyleft is OK. Compelling a non-copyleft (BSDPL) is also OK, if weird. It's just forcing me to give the same freedoms and restrictions I had. * Uneven licenses, which have multiple distinct free paths, are Free as long as there is one Free path. That is, "BSD to teachers, GPL to everyone else" is OK. If I'm a teacher, I have a free license and can distribute my changes under any license I like, including the BSD. If I'm not, I have a Free license, the GPL, and can distribute my changes under the GPL, the same license I received. * Licenses like the QPL, which compel me to give somebody more rights to my work than I had to his, are not Free. They are not compatible with DFSG 3. * Uneven licenses which compel a non-copyleft license grant are also not Free. For example, a license which said "this is BSD to teachers, GPL to everybody else, EXCEPT that you must also make your work BSD to teachers" is not free. I didn't have the right to make proprietary changes, so compelling me to grant that right to others is non-Free. I think that's a consistent system, well-grounded in the text of the DFSG. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
