David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 12:09:01PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Why is granting of extra freedoms non-free? >> >> >> >> It isn't. The part of my message that you snipped made clear that >> >> it's the requirement that I must grant extra permissions which is >> >> non-free. >> > >> > What is the difference between granting of extra permissions and >> > granting of extra freedoms? >> >> Nothing. Therefore, I require you to grant me a permissive license to >> all code you have ever written. >> >> Oh wait, that doesn't seem free to you? Why? Because it's a >> requirement. What's the difference between charity and tax? Tax is a >> requirement, charity is freely given. > > That's not a fair example because all the code he has ever written is not a > derived work from the licensed code. Just because there are requirements of > people receiving the license to give up something does not make it non-free.
Neither is all of the code used to modify a QPL'd work a derivative of the licensed code. If I take some spiffy-keen code written elsewhere and write some shims to cram it into the OCaml compiler, it's a modification, but what I wrote before I ever saw OCaml is not a derivative work. The whole program taken together is, but I never distribute that because I can only distribute source as patches. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
