Re: [knghtbrd@debian.org: QPL v0.92+knghtbrd1]

[Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org>]

On Mon, Dec 28, 1998 at 09:05:41AM -0500, Kevin Forge wrote:

>   c. Modifications must be licensed under terms which comply with
>      sections 6 and/or 7 below. In order for a modification to be
>      considered for inclusion in future versions of the Software it's
>      author must grant the Copyright holder permission to license the
>      modification under other terms.  In order to facilitate this,
>      modifications licensed under this license will imply this
>      permission unless you state otherwise.  The Copyright holder
>      agrees in exchange for this permission to release future versions
>      of the Software under this license in addition to any other
>      license(s).

Hmm, not necessary to comply with section 7 IMO...  If a mod isn't QPL or
otherwise able to be licensed in a manner that Troll Tech can use it, the
need to be GPL compatible is moot as the mod will never receive wide
distribution.  I don't want to encourage people to fork a GPL only
version of Qt which would be possible.  Of course, something similar was
already possible, but mentioning section 7 here is reminding people they
can.  We don't want to do that---at least Troll Tech wouldn't want to,
and I don't want to either.

Of course, the thing that M$ has to worry about is that if they absorb
Troll Tech to kill Qt by offering the Trolls trucks filled with money and
stuff, Qt would become VERY nicely licensed: BSDish and QPL/GPL!  Same
goes for everyone/anyone else too.  Qt's future would be quite secure. 
Hopefully so will Troll Tech's profits, at least until the world abandons
proprietary software.  (As nice as that sounds in theory, I am NOT
holding my breath and don't believe it'll happen as long as current
Copyright laws exist.)


I also don't really like "licensed under
this license" as it seems to be kinda from the department of redundancy
dept., language sub-division section.  <g>

Also, "it's author" -> "its author".  Nitpicking I know, however these
things are important.

Let me see...

c. Modifications must be licensed under terms which comply with section 6
of this license.  Also, in order for a modification to be considered for
inclusion in future versions of the Software its author must grant the
Copyright holder permission to license the modification under other
terms.  In order to facilitate this, modifications released under this
license will imply permission for this unless you state otherwise.  In
exchange for this permission, the Copyright Holder agrees to release
future versions of the Software under this license in addition to other
license(s) they may release it.


Hmm, clearer certainly.  I like it much better this way, however I'm not
convinced it couldn't be done any nicer (and maybe shorter) but retain
the clarity of the message.

-- 
NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!