Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 03:48:10PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> > Now, you may claim that the patch may be more significant than the original
>> > code, or equaly so. But then, in this case, it would be argued which of
>> > those
>> > correspond to a derived work of the other. My position is that each one is
>> > a
>> > derived work of the other, each being QPLed, and so each get the same
>> > licence
>> > and the same benefit, in particular your right to claim upstream's code is
>> > a
>> > derived work of your own stuff, and can thus be incorportated in your own
>> > code
>> > base, provided upstream incorporate your work.
>>
>> The QPL requires that I give special permission to the original author to
>> incorporate my changes. It does not give me that permission in return if he
>> does so.
>
> Ok, please tell me where the QPL says that the upstream author, in addition of
> having the right to licence your changes made under the QPL into his tree,
> where does it say that he has the right to not respect the QPL on your code ?
Right here, in QPL 3b:
When modifications to the Software are released under this
license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the
initial developer of the Software to distribute your
modification in future versions of the Software provided such
versions remain available under these terms in addition to any
other license(s) of the initial developer.
That grants an entirely separate license to distribute the
modification in future versions. He can't modify it himself, but he
can apply the patch and distribute the whole thing together. The
modifier can't do that. That's what the patch clause is for.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
