Brian Thomas Sniffen writes: > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Brian Thomas Sniffen writes: > > > >> Which, incidentally, is an issue. If some user sends you a patch for > >> O'Caml, you can't apply it, because then you'll be distributing > >> software under the QPL, and trigger QPL 3b, which means you have to > >> grant the initial author permission to relicense... but you aren't the > >> copyright holder for the patch, and so can't grant that permission. > >> > >> This ends up being not merely theoretically non-free, but a serious > >> practical problem for Debian. > > > > This does not follow. The patch's original author "releases" the > > change by sending it to Sven (or whoever maintains the package in > > question), triggering 3b. > > Nope -- the patcher doesn't release his software under the QPL. He > doesn't transmit binaries to anyone at all. But Sven does. So the > patcher doesn't trigger 3b, but Sven does.
Can you elaborate on why the patcher doesn't trigger 3b? 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: a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices in the Software. b. When modifications to the Software are released under this license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the initial developer of the Software to distribute your modification in future versions of the Software provided such versions remain available under these terms in addition to any other license(s) of the initial developer. I see no mention at all of binary distribution. It only mentions distribution of the patch(es). Michael
