Re: Recently released QPL
> Er..
>
> First: this contradicts your statement about BSD software being relicensable.
sorry, i should have said "some licenses"; namely most existing
copylefts.
> Second: even the GPL doesn't force you to put the derived work under the
> GPL -- except for the part which is already GPL, the rest of it could
> be placed under the BSD license.
however the gpl does clearly say that means that the work as a whole
must be under the gpl, which makes it necessary to package
modifications separately which is a nuisiance. (picture for example
the modifications being binary-only... you'd have to distribute
patches against a compiled binary, or supply additional object files,
and require extra linking.) this is partially the point, because most
of the time the license you would want to put modifications under
would be proprietary and that's what the gpl aims to prevent, but it
kinda shoots itself in the foot by thwarting cooperation between free
software.
> What's unfair about a free software license that's not also unfair about a
> non-free software license? Or are you suggesting that we work to repeal
> copyright law?
no, non-free licenses are also unfair -- but just because they play
dirty doesn't mean we have to too. it's the whole "two wrongs don't
make a right" deal.
> Free software licenses don't prevent someone from making his work
> proprietary.
not all of them -- but a copyleft *does* prevent work based on it,
even work that was undreamed of by the original author, to be free,
and i think that people should be free to do the wrong thing. (which
means of course that i will never pester you for making copylefts. i
will merely attempt to educate you, and gently at that, because i
really hate pushy ideology salesmen.)
> I guess I'm an example of someone who disagrees with you. See
> above.
vive la difference...
> That's not what Richard was suggesting. He was reminding people that
> the author of a GPLed work can resolve the conflict between the GPL and
> a non-GPL free license simply by granting additional permissions beyond
> those granted in the GPL.
i think we're talking about different things here... look at his essay
about the npl at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/netscape-npl.html.
> Er.. the GPL already has this.
um, no?
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
...
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
--p.
Reply to: