On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:41:43PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > 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
Because I can do the same thing too. Everybody has the same rights. - Matt
