Re: The QPL
Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Hmm. Patches are usually submitted under the same license as the
> > original work. I can't think of any exceptions I've ever seen.
> > So if that is all he wants, an X-like license would be fine.
>
> That would allow him to do whatever he wanted with the patches,
> including incorporating them into commercial software, right?
Right.
> But that would allow anyone to do the same. He wants to avoid
> someone taking his work (without compensation), slapping a GUI on
> top on it and selling it as a Windows app or something. The X
> license would allow that.
But he wants to do exactly that with contributed code? :) Yes, that
requires an asymmetric license. The ones I know about are the QPL and
the NPL.
> He was almost ready to use the GPL, but I pointed out that once
> people send in patches his work is no longer his alone. He can't
> turn around, modify the work and sell it without hunting through
> for all patches and re-writing them.
But you say below that he doesn't expect a significant amount
of patches. Make up your mind ;-)
> > I bet that would attract more people than the QPL would.
> > The QPL is patches-only;
>
> We thought of _modifying_ the QPL (say to remove the patch
> clause) but the author thought that would create yet another
> license for people to parse, etc.
Indeed. Also, the QPL does not allow this. On the other hand,
I have heard that the text of a contract cannot be copyrighted.
> > I would certainly avoid any program
> > under that license.
>
> That's certainly your choice, but rarely the upstream author's
> loss. This program has been `available' to the oceanographic
> community for close to ten years, but 99% of it (or more) is
> still the upstream author's code. I don't think that the threat
> of reduced hacker code input is an argument for him since it
> hasn't been a driving factor so far.
Then why does he want the program to be free? If he doesn't expect
code input, then perhaps because he wants many people to use it --
people who would not use a non-free program. I think he could get
even more people to use it if he uses something freer than the QPL.
> Is the patch clause your major hurdle? Or the fact that he could
> use your 0.1% contribution for profit?
The patches-only clause. I don't consider such code to be free.
(Notice how carefully I said DFSG-free in my first mail :-)
Richard Braakman
Reply to:
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The QPL
- From: Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>
- References:
- Re: The QPL
- From: Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>