On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 11:39:29AM -0800, David Johnson wrote: > This opinion obout having to give up private modification to Troll Tech > is a myth, albeit a common myth. It can be cleared up by simply reading > the QPL instead of taking someone else's rumour as fact. > > Section 6 says "...These items, when distributed, are subject to the > following requirements:" > > The subsection in question (6c) says "...you must supply one." > > Obviously, subsection 6c only applies if you are distributing > modifications. It doesn't care if you make any modifications for your > own use. The full QPL license can be read at <http://www.troll.no/qpl/>. This is *still* incompatible with the GPL. To wit: There are no circumstances under which the GPL requires distribution of source code to someone who is not a party to the distribution of a binary. This is not true with the QPL. GPL Example: Mr. Smith sells a binary copy of his GPL'ed, libreadline4-linked application to Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones can demand (within three years) the source code to the application from Mr. Smith. The Free Software Foundation (the copyright holder on libreadline4) cannot. QPL Example: Mr. Smith sells a binary copy of his GPL'ed, libqt2-linked application to Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones can demand (with no time restriction) the source code to the application from Mr. Smith. Furthermore, Troll Tech AS (the copyright holder on libqt2) can do the same. See the difference? -- G. Branden Robinson | We either learn from history or, Debian GNU/Linux | uh, well, something bad will happen. branden@ecn.purdue.edu | -- Bob Church roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpGtsDmNGE81.pgp
Description: PGP signature