Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 09:38:24PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: >> 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. > > Well, it would be an interpetation that if followed would make people think > two times before licencing stuff under the QPL. > >> 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. > > It says : > > b. 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. > > So, i don't see here an "all-permisive" licence. Just that they have the right > to use the patch as part of future versions of the Software, provided it is > under the QPL and some other licence. Nowhere do i see there that the initial > developer has the right to ignore the QPL licence which covers the patch, and > thus he is evidently bound by it. He still has the right to relicence it and > distribute it though, agreed, but that doesn't mean he has the right to not > respect the > licence of the modificator, does it ?
Thanks for going into detail about why you believed this. Now I think I see where the misunderstanding is. The initial developer does get to ignore any other license granted by the modifier, and here's why: if I offer you some code under the GPL or the BSD license, then you can pick. You don't have to distribute the source of your modifications, because you can accept the BSD license and ignore the GPL entirely. Because it's a license and not a bilateral (i.e., common law) contract, it can't actually restrict him -- all it can do is grant him permissions. If he doesn't like the conditions on those permissions, he can ignore the whole bundle. So yes, the initial author doesn't have to respect a license of the modifier unless he wants to make further modifications to the patch. Which, incidentally, is an issue. If some user sends you a patch for O'Caml, you can't apply it, because then you'll be distributing software under the QPL, and trigger QPL 3b, which means you have to grant the initial author permission to relicense... but you aren't the copyright holder for the patch, and so can't grant that permission. This ends up being not merely theoretically non-free, but a serious practical problem for Debian. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
