Matthew Garrett wrote: > 1) The FSF list the QPL as a free software license, despite it being in > violation of "You should also have the freedom to make modifications and > use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning > that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be > required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way." > (from www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) - I guess this is an > RFC-style "should". The word "must" is used elsewhere on the page, which > tends to support that. Note that later on that same page is the text "It is also acceptable for the license to require that, if you have distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you must send one." This is highly inconsistent with other position statements from the FSF, such as their APSL analysis (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/historical-apsl.html) and the statements you quoted. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature