On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 18:58:20 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 10:54:42PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > I don't think QPL#3b requires the other licenses to carry an > > attached additional restriction such as "must be additionally > > available under the terms of the QPL". The recipients of the > > differently licensed version have the rights granted by that > > different license, nothing more, nothing less. > > I don't see how "provided" could mean anything else, in "provided such > versions remain available under these terms in addition to ...". > > If you, the initial author, release the work under the BSD license in > addition to the QPL, and I then take the code, modify it and place my > modifications under the GPL, then the Software is no longer available > under these [QPL] terms. This "provided" has been violated. I'm not > allowed to do that, and you (the initial author) don't have permission > to give me permission to do so--the above "provided" explicitly denies > you that. > > Where am I wrong?
Well, maybe you are not wrong... In that case, I'm the one who is wrong.
;)
My reasoning was like the following: who is bound by the clause
"provided..."? The initial developer. Not the recipient of the
differently licensed version.
In other words, I thought that QPL#3b requires the modifier to give
permission to the initial developer to incorporate his/her modification
to future versions of the software and relicense the results as he/she
likes, as long as the same is also available under the QPL. But this "as
he/she likes" means under *any* license, a proprietary one for instance,
but also a free one, even the GNU GPL, or the X11 license, with no
additional restrictions for further recipients.
It says "in addition to any other license(s) of the initial developer".
I felt that while the initial developer is bound to release the same
version under the QPL also, he/she is allowed to give to others
permission to modify the differently licensed version with no "must be
additionally available under the terms of the QPL" restriction.
Of course, I suspect TrollTech (and other copyright holders that use the
QPL license) didn't think about such a possibility. That's because the
usual choice for "any other license(s)" is one or more proprietary
license(s) that do(es) not allow modification or redistribution.
But I feel the language of the QPL is not clear enough to deny the
initial developer the possibility of giving to others the above
permission.
But of course I may be wrong.
IANAL.
--
| GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | $ fortune
Francesco | Key fingerprint = | Q: What is purple
Poli | C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | and commutes?
| 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | A: A boolean grape.
pgpGeWTyachNU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
