Re: Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
>> > So if the developer is just doing it for himself, then the clause
>> > doesn't apply.
>>
>> Let's go through this again:-
>>
>> `These items, when distributed, are subject ..'
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>So if I give a copy to my wife for review, that triggers this.
If the upstream author asks you about it. For that to happen, first your wife
needs to inform him about the change, so he gains knowledge of it.
If the change is kept relatively private, then you can distribute it to anyone
you want, without ever falling under these obligations to send the
modifications upstream.
Also, on a moral ground, how would you justify taking free source code, making
your own modifications, and refusing those modifications to upstream, even
though he could integrate it in the original source, and make it available to
the rest of the world ? That sounds like bastardly egoist on your part. (err,
your not meant personally here, just to be clear).
>> and
>>
>> `If the items are not available to the general public, '
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Something can be distributed without making the whole thing available
>> to the public.
>
>There you go. QPL then forces the modifications to be sent to the original
>author on request.
On request. I guess the main point here is the that 6c doesn'y mention who
will cover the cost of the data transfer, altough the two other points
mentioning this implicitly put the responsability of paying this cose onto the
requester of the source code. Adding that should lift any doubts about the
freeness, especially in regard to the desert island test.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: