Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If we consider a developer distributing an application that links with a > GPLed work to a small group, we discover that every time he passes on > the binaries he must also pass on the source code /and/ give them the > right to pass on further modifications. This is plainly a Bad Thing as > far as the devloper is concerned - his valuable modifications may be > handed on further by the recipients. He's promised to the licensor that > he'll do this.
No, he hasn't. The licensor's merely promised not to sue him for doing so. >>So, this developer is required to pay a fee. Therefore, a QPL-covered >>work seems not to follow DFSG 1. >> >>The GPL doesn't have this problem, as you are not forced to promise to >>give anything to the licensor. Even if you do give something to them, >>that's a simple gift. It's not a fee because it wasn't a promise you >>gave in exchange for the licensing. > > If the licensor made you promise to give a kitten to every recipient, > the fact that you don't have to provide it to the licensor wouldn't stop > us from considering it a fee. That's right. This is why it's a good thing that the GPL doesn't extract a promise from licensees. It's a true public license, unlike the Q"P"L: you don't even have to be aware of it to benefit from privileges granted by it. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
