On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:50:29AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > 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.
Well, and ? you distribute something under the BSD, someone use it and sells it under a proprietary version, how is this fairer ? And how is it fairer as applied to a modification i make to a BSDed work, which, not being fair myself, i also put under the BSD ? In any case, this is no reason for it to be DFSG non-free ? > > 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. Yes, i have been wondering about this too. Maybe adding the annotated version of the licence would be a good idea. > > > 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. Well, i can't agree to this, but more on this later. Friendly, Sven Luther > > - Matt
