Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
>>> GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
>>> I gave them (under 3(c)). I am then obliged to pass on my modifications
>>> directly to people who I never provided binaries to. Is distribution
>>> under 3(b) and 3(c) non-free?
>>
>>If those were the only options, it was the loose consensus that that would
>>not be free.
>
> Really? Wow. That's insane.
Merely internally consistent. A requirement that I can only
distribute by offering to distribute to any third party is not Free.
Practically speaking, imagine what happens when every microsoft
employee separately requests a copy of GNU Emacs, on tape please.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: