On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:19:19AM -0400, Joe Moore wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > > > >But if upstreqm incorporqtes your changes, thus creating a modification of > >your QPLed work, you have the same right as he has, don't you ? > > To distribute the modified (combined) version of your QPL'd work under a > proprietaty license?
And under the QPLed version. It has to be both, acordying to the QPL 3b. and then, the combined upstream + patches work, coming under the QPL, has to abid to the same rules. > In other words, if I submit a patch to the ocaml compiler, and it is > accepted, then I can "take the software proprietary" just the same as > the original author? Yep, that is what i am arguing. I have some doubts about it, but it is a rather discouraging way of arguing for people considering to licence stuff under the QPL. > That certainly makes the QPL more attractive to me, as a > non-original-author. But I'm afraid I don't understand why any original > author would use it. Indeed, so by arguing that way, we could bring this clause to be modified by the upstream author, could we not ? Friendly, Sven Luther
