Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > as a person who does not feel that the QPL > is DFSG-free, I should offer my clarfication of the above.
For the record, and for the benefit of the JpGraph author, I should probably state that after having closely read Branden's objections to the QPL, I have come to think that at least one of them have merit. The problem, phrased in the context of JpGraph, is that if I download the free version and make some cool patches to it available on my website, the language in QPL 3b says that I *must* allow the upstream author to take my patch and apply it to the "professional" version that he sells under a non-free license. We believe [1] that a free software license should not force people who modify free software to allow their modifications to be used in non-free software. [1] That means: I believe so, and my informed guess is that the consensus on debian-legal would agree with me. This means that the best advice to the JpGraph author would be to consider switching to the GPL. The most significant difference (beyond those needed for DFSG-freedom) is that the patch clause will go away, but after we've dismissed the QPL I don't think there are any well-known free licenses with patch clauses left. (Of course there is always the dangerous possibility of cook-your-own-license, but that is not to be recommended). -- Henning Makholm "It was intended to compile from some approximation to the M-notation, but the M-notation was never fully defined, because representing LISP functions by LISP lists became the dominant programming language when the interpreter later became available."