Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 08:41:35AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:48:10PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: >> >> > Now, you may claim that the patch may be more significant than the >> >> > original >> >> > code, or equaly so. But then, in this case, it would be argued which of >> >> > those >> >> > correspond to a derived work of the other. My position is that each one >> >> > is a >> >> > derived work of the other, each being QPLed, and so each get the same >> >> > licence >> >> > and the same benefit, in particular your right to claim upstream's code >> >> > is a >> >> > derived work of your own stuff, and can thus be incorportated in your >> >> > own code >> >> > base, provided upstream incorporate your work. >> >> >> >> The QPL requires that I give special permission to the original author to >> >> incorporate my changes. It does not give me that permission in return if >> >> he >> >> does so. >> > >> > Ok, please tell me where the QPL says that the upstream author, in >> > addition of >> > having the right to licence your changes made under the QPL into his tree, >> > where does it say that he has the right to not respect the QPL on your >> > code ? >> >> Right here, in QPL 3b: >> >> 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. >> >> That grants an entirely separate license to distribute the >> modification in future versions. He can't modify it himself, but he > > So, what if he want to touch the code provided by the patch, he has to abide > by the terms of the QPL ?
If he wants to make further changes to my modifications, he has to abide by whatever license I gave him for that, yes. But he's still the initial developer, not me, even if I gave it to him under the QPL. But if I license it to him saying "you may distribute this freely, but you may not modify it" then he's mildly screwed. Indeed, that's the default license he gets under QPL 3b. I wonder how many further-modified patches are in the OCaml compilers right now, without a license to INRIA to do so. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
