Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG : QPL 3b argumentation.
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> 1) QPL 3b. A is allowed to integrate changes from M into the original
> software in both the QPL licence and some other licence it is dually
> licenced with (GPL or proprietary). The claim that this fails DFSG #1 has
> been made, if you consider this right a fee or royalty.
| 3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your
| modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as
| patches. The following restrictions apply to modifications:
This covers modification of the original software. Only path (or patch-like)
distribution is allowed here. This is expressely allowed by DFSG #4.
| a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices
| in the Software.
Again, pretty standard.
| b. 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.
First point, this only applies to released software. Also let's see what the
trolltech annotation has to say about it, since it covers some doubt in the
language above :
| | You may license your patch any way you see fit, but note that when
| | distributed in a binary form of Qt, it must be licensed under the QPL -
| | this is explained in section 4.
This means that the patch can be licenced under any licence you chose, and it
somehow suggest the above wording, which means that 3b applies only if you are
licencing those patches under the QPL. more to this in QPL 4.
| | This clause makes it possible for Trolltech to include patches in new
| | versions of Qt. It also means that the same patches can be included in the
| | Qt Professional Edition, but Trolltech are in turn required to ensure that
| | those changes are in both versions.
Ok, this is the second part of this QPL 3b clause which is under question
here. It means that the upstreamauthor A has the right to get (not specified
how) the modifications made by the modificator M, and integrate it in the
original software (and only the original software), under the QPL and possibly
under some other licence in case the software is dually licenced. This applies
as well to the dual QPL/GPL licence of Qt, as to QPL/Proprietary kind of
licences.
The only way this would be considered as non-free is under the DFSG #1, when
you consider the fact of giving those right back to the upstream author a fee
or royalty. Ok, this can be argued, and probably will be in a subthread of the
corresponding topic, but my own position is that if we consider it a fee, it
must include a cost to M to fullfill it, and since M still keeps the whole
right to the patch he wrote, and in no way loses any of his rights to it, it
cannot really be considered a fee.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: