On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 02:50:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 08:24:30AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > OK. You believe QPL 3 is free, and you seem to have thought about it > > a bunch. So please explain to me how to do the following: > > > > 1. Modify a QPL'd work. > > 2. Because of the license under which I received the material, > > distribute patches representing the modifications. > > 3. Distribute them to the initial developer under the same license -- > > that is, without letting him distribute changes to my patches (such > > as the application of them to the mainline source) except as > > further patches. > > > > I don't see a way to do that, but DFSG 3 says I should be able to > > distribute under the same license. > > Notice that you can distribute patches under any licence you well please. As long as it's source-only distribution. That's OK. > Only binary distribution of them force you to put them under the QPL, > which is clearly the same licence as upstream has given you. Binary distribution forces you to release your modifications under the QPL. By the terms of that licence, however, by virtue of the fact that your patch is a modification, the initial developer gets an all-permissive licence *in* *addition* to the permissions granted to him/her and the rest of the world by the QPL. While the wording is a bit roundabout, and you need to take different bits of the licence together to get the whole picture, the end result is that source-only distribution *can* be free of extended grants (or not, if you choose to licence your modification under the QPL), but binary distribution results in an extra permission grant to the initial developer. Which is clearly *not* the same licence as the initial developer has given you. - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature