On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43:31AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:51:46AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > I'll get to the other two in a bit, but for now: you completely failed > > to address the non-freeness of 3b: > > Well, in the orginal summary, there was no mention of 3b, so ... > > > 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. > > > > which allows the initial developer to take code I've written and > > distribute it in proprietary ways, even though I don't get that > > privilege with respect to his code. > > Notice the part about : > > 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. > > The change can only apply to future versions of the software, which are > released under the QPL, and may also be licenced under some other licence.
And that other licence allows the initial developer to sell my modifications under another licence. I don't get the ability to sell his modifications under another licence. Doesn't seem real fair. > Notice what the annotated QPL has to say about this : For anyone who may have missed my previous message (not you Sven, I know you wrote this before I wrote mine), the annotated QPL as written by Trolltech has no real effect unless Trolltech is the copyright holder. > > Why are you justifying INRIA's code hoarding in this way? > > Given this interpetation, and the fact that any proprietary change must also > appear in the QPLed version, how can you sustain claims of hoarding ? OK, how about code exploitation? Unfair exploitation? I'm not quite sure of the exact term I'm looking for, but it's not a positive one. Unbalanced is close, but not quite right. - Matt
