Re: The QPL
Richard Braakman wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > 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? :)
Yup. He wants to keep that door open in case he decide to do
that. I guess he doesn't expect an email saying: `There's a cool
new way of figuring out contours, here's a patch for it's inclusion
into gri'. He expects patches like `on line 3456 of gri.c the
foreach loop should go to n-1 instead of n'.
> 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 ;-)
Doesn't make a difference right? The _worst_ case is someone
sending in a GPL'ed patch like `on line 3456 of gri.c the foreach
loop should go to n-1 instead of n'. How could he re-write that
The protection for him is against having to hunt through his own
code for snippets that don't belong to him anymore.
Once I told RMS I had written something better for feature in
Emacs, and he should take a look at it. RMS replied he wouldn't
_look_ at the code unless it was GPL'ed. Same idea I guess.
> > 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.
He doesn't _expect_ code input. I think he'd be glad if someone
contributed huge features. It's easy to give your code away
unless you want to hang on to the possibility of selling it under
a different license in a parallel fashion. I have written code
that I couldn't hope to sell now because of my inclusion of
contributions from dozens of people.
> > 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 :-)
If we could modify the QPL and rename it, we could do that.
I will be forwarding this conversation to the upstream author.
- Re: The QPL
- From: Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
- Re: The QPL
- From: Raul Miller <email@example.com>
- Re: The QPL
- From: John Hasler <firstname.lastname@example.org>