On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 05:29:43PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> So yes, the initial author doesn't have to respect a license of the > >> modifier unless he wants to make further modifications to the patch. > > > > Well, you are equally unrestricted as long as you don't modify the original > > upstream code, are you not ? So this is indeed the same kind of permissions > > that apply to upstream when taking your patch than you when taking the > > original code. > > I can't make any sense out of this. Can you rephrase it? > > > >> Which, incidentally, is an issue. If some user sends you a patch for > >> O'Caml, you can't apply it, because then you'll be distributing > >> software under the QPL, and trigger QPL 3b, which means you have to > >> grant the initial author permission to relicense... but you aren't the > >> copyright holder for the patch, and so can't grant that permission. > > > > No, i don't believe this to be a problem. It is a separate patch, so whoever > > want to modify it, he can take your patch, the original upstream, build its > > own modified stuff based on both, and then release its own patch and binary > > distrib based on both your and his work in addition to the original work. > > > > Still, the fact that you are speaking of patches here is cosmetic. The > > reality > > is that all three persons involved here produce code, and that once it is > > integrated together, all three pieces of code are mutually derivatives of > > the > > two others, and thus the rights granted under the QPL flow in all ways. > > This I can make sense of, and it bears no relation to any sense of the > phrase "derivative work" with which I am familiar. Neither does it > relate to the "modifications" of which the QPL speaks.
So you claim that once the original work incorporate a patch, then the result is not a derivative work of that patch ? Friendly, Sven Luther
