On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:25:34AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:28:16AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > But you're not. The license permissions you received don't permit using > > the code under a completely difference license; for example, you can't > > link the code with GPL work, since the licenses are incompatible. However, > > you have to distribute your modifications under terms that *do* allow the > > original programmer to do so. The license terms you're forced to release > > modifications under are different from the ones you received.
(As an aside, I think this particular example was incorrect; he can't use the GPL, since it would conflict with the "provided such versions remain available under these terms ..." stipulation, but the general example holds.) > But if upstreqm incorporqtes your changes, thus creating a modification of > your QPLed work, you have the same right as he has, don't you ? Nope. Under QPL#3, I can only distribute my changes as patch files; I can't distribute the work with my changes incorporated. However, the original author can, since I'm required to give him special permission to do so under QPL#3b. I believe this extra permission violates DFSG#3. I can't release my changes under the terms I received; I have to make a special additional license grant, granting the original author permissions to my work that he explicitly denied me to his. -- Glenn Maynard