Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I create a program P that consists of an executable X linked with a > > library L. X links with L, but P is a modification of L, albeit a > > modification that was made by adding material to L. > > Ok, in this case, you can either distribute it together in the L tarball, and > it is a modification, or you can distribute it separatedly, and in this case > it is a work linked with the software.
And the first option may be sufficient for DFSG-freedom. > In any case, if you consider it as a modification, you have to provide a patch > for it, and if you make binaries, they have to be QPLed. If you provide it > separatedly, you can chose a more liberal free licence, but you must honor the > upstream request covered by 6c. Then you're agreeing with me. The first way (QPL 3) is on the face of it very restrictive compared with the second way (QPL 6) - as you say, you have to QPL the whole thing - but if the first way is free, then the licence is free, and if the first way isn't free, then the licence isn't free, or at least that's the point of view I'm trying to argue for in this subthread. > original modified work. (The "original modified work" is almost as good as granting additional restrictions. I think we should do a new licence using both those expressions!)
