On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:25:18AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:39:47PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > >> Because there are three works in question: the original work A, and > >> your patch to it P(A). Then there's the version the initial developer > >> releases, B=A+P(A). He releases that to his dog under the QPL, so it's > >> available, and sells it to me under the GPL. I don't see the separate > >> patch, I just see this as work B. I make some further changes to this > >> and release to the world under the GPL as work C. > >> > >> The "future version of the software" containing the work *you* > >> contributed is still available to the world under the QPL. > > > > You labelled versions but didn't use those labels in the final sentence, > > so I'm not sure which one you meant (both B and C fit). > > You're right, I'm sorry. B is still available under the QPL. If you > don't like the dog argument, he can offer to sell B to you under the > QPL for a thousand bucks, not an unreasonable fee for software, and > then it's available. If you don't like that, then ignore the loophole > potential of "available" and we can assume he just offers it for free. > > > Work B? How? He only released it to his dog, not to the world, and you'd > > have a hard time asking the dog to send it even if you knew he had it. If > > you're claiming that you can get around the requirement to keep it available > > under the QPL by releasing once to an uninterested party (such as a dog), > > you're talking about loopholes. > > > > Work C? It isn't available to the world under the QPL, only the GPL, and > > it, > > too, is a future version of the software, with my patch in it. (Well, > > "Software" isn't defined, so it isn't clear if it's the same "Software" > > after > > being modified a few more times and going through a few more hands; but it > > sure feels like it is.) > > No, it's different software -- it's not INRIA Ocaml, it's Microsoft > OCaml.NET or something. Contains related components, but that's > common in software development, right?
F# is basically a .net implementation of ocaml by MS. Friendly, Sven Luther
