On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 08:41:35AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > 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
So, what if he want to touch the code provided by the patch, he has to abide by the terms of the QPL ? Friendly, Sven Luther
