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: > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 09:29:24PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > > I don't see how this makes it non-free. You are distributing under the > > > > same license you received the software under, so DFSG 3 is satisfied, > > > > 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. > > 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 ?
I really wish you'd stop pushing this barrel, because I have to keep swatting it down. The initial developer does not have to abide by the terms of the QPL with regard to your changes, because he received an all-permissive licence to them. - Matt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature