Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>On 2004-07-15 02:01:55 +0100 Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
>wrote:
>> Of course distribution is of interest to the original developer. The
>> original
>> recipient (who I provided the software to) is making a copy of
>> something that
>> I put effort into without necessarily giving me anything in return.
>
>While this is the case for free software, isn't the problem that QPL
>requires us to give something to the original developer in return?
I don't see why that's a problem. Remember that the context is "Why is
forced provision of distributed modifications more acceptable than
forced provision of undistributed modifications".
>> In what way does it serve free software to allow people to hoard
>> modifications rather than allow the community to take advantage of
>> them?
>
>It also seems to allow software to develop in sheltered communities
>without interference from an obnoxious original developer. If it is
>good, it will probably escape from the shelter.
If the sheltered community isn't breaking any laws, then the worst that
the obnoxious original developer can do is be nasty to them.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: