Re: Recently released QPL
> > 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.
Jonathan P Tomer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> however the gpl does clearly say that means that the work as a
> whole must be under the gpl,
No, it says that the work as a whole must be licensed [to ... ] under
the >>TERMS<< of the gpl.
The rights granted in the GPL have to be available to everyone, but
if another license grants those terms that's fine.
Then again, this distinction might not matter to you.
> which makes it necessary to package modifications separately which
> is a nuisiance.
Er.. packaging a part of the work separately doesn't change anything.
> (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.)
I guess you're thinking of binary kernel modules for linux? But
that is a special dispensation granted by Linus, and isn't a right
granted by the gpl.
> 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.
You mean like the FreeBSD vs. the NetBSD camps?
Anyways, I think you're tilting at windmills. There's more useful
problems to solve.