On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:53:42AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 05:53:14AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote: > > > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So this solves most of the issues, and we need to go through the QPL > > > > 3b again, but upstream feels it is a reasonable clause, and would > > > > like to keep it. > > > > > > I'm sure that anyone would love to have that kind of term in a > > > license. It still feels non-free to me. > > > > Sure, but there is much less consensus about this one, so if a handfull of > > people feel it is non-free, i doubt it will come into play. > > I would consider it a fee. It is even enshrined in US copyright law [1] > > The term "financial gain" includes receipt, or expectation > of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other > copyrighted works.
Ok, well. But we need to consider non-US law also. > Since all copyrights flow to the originator, I can't help but see it > as a fee for making modifications. Well, even if we see it as such, do we really want to declare this clause as non-free ? After all it will simplify the administrative tasks involved in havign upstream integrate changes back, and in general will be a win for free software. Notice that the non-freeness involved here, is about the freedom to not contribute back your changes, is this really something we want to defent ? > > > > Also the first modification, well, i am not overly confident that it > > > > is really needed, and i am sure my wording of it are abysmal, and i > > > > ask for some help here in finding some nice and concise wording > > > > which doesn't divert to much from the original. The old wording was : > > > > > > > > a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices > > > > in the Software. > > > > > > > > And i changed it to : > > > > > > > > a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices > > > > in the Software except by adding new authors. > > > > > > If I'm converting an interactive program to be non-interactive, I > > > still can't remove a hard-coded copyright string that pops up in an > > > "About" box. > > > > Bah. I doubt this is what was meant here, and i doubt this is going to be a > > problem all over. > > If you don't think that is what is meant, then change the wording to > say that (preferably, remove it). Otherwise it is just lawyerbait. debian-legal bait ? :))) Notice that i will have to add all this modification in a licence-patch why, saying : The software is under the QPL, except ..., so the less change is needed the less confusion it will be. I would much rather keep this one as is, and concentrate at a later time to the change to another licence altogether, maybe one of the upcoming CECILL family. Now, if you could propose a sane and not too involved wording for the above, i and upstream would consider this. It should not exceed a few (preferably two) lines though. Friendly, Sven Luther
