Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > First point, this only applies to released software. Also let's see what the > trolltech annotation has to say about it, since it covers some doubt in the > language above :
Firstly, I would think that the Trolltech annotation is irrelevant unless INRIA have publicly stated that it applies to their licence. Secondly, even if they have done that it would probably only help to disambiguate the licence where it is ambiguous, and I don't think it is ambiguous in this case. Thirdly, I don't think the bit you quoted from the annotation out of context means what you think it means. So, to save time, I'd rather just ignore the annotation for now. I think the effect of 3b is to give the initial developer the right to incorporate modifications into their code which they can subsequently licence in any way they like provided they also make it available under the QPL. I think you agree with this really, so I don't know why you dragged the annotation into this. > The only way this would be considered as non-free is under the DFSG #1, when > you consider the fact of giving those right back to the upstream author a fee > or royalty. Ok, this can be argued, and probably will be in a subthread of the > corresponding topic, but my own position is that if we consider it a fee, it > must include a cost to M to fullfill it, and since M still keeps the whole > right to the patch he wrote, and in no way loses any of his rights to it, it > cannot really be considered a fee. I disagree with that argument. Firstly, I don't think the reference to "royalty of other fee" in DFSG #1 is meant to be interpreted narrowly; I think it's meant as an example of a restriction. Secondly, giving someone a right which they didn't already have does potentially "include a cost" because it prevents you from asking for payment in return for giving that right. However, I think there is another argument for 3b not making the QPL non-free: M can choose to grant everyone a BSD-like licence for the modifications, and then the initial developer doesn't get any right they didn't already have. Another way of stating the same argument: a licence that forces modifiers to licence their modifications to the initial developer is no worse than a licence that forces modifiers to licence their modifications to everyone, and the latter is arguably still free. I'm undecided, but I think I can just about accept 3b as consistent with the DFSG. Note that I'm not a DD, so my opinion is irrelevant. Only my arguments might count, if you choose to accept them.