On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:36:11PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > However the question is whether one needs to invoke clause 6 at > all. Clauses 3 and 4 allow the development of "modified versions" > without any forced distribution (but with a patch clause). Normally, > extending a library with a main program counts as modifications - at > least that's the case in the theory of GPL, and it is my impression > that this interpretation rests on solid legal ground. > > Viewed in that light, QPL 6 gives an *additional* permission to > develop application programs and distribute them under *another* > free(ish) license than the QPL, provided that one submits to forced > distribution. Without this permission the license would still pass > DFSG #3 (due to the GPL-like clauses 3 and 4), so it should not be > considered non-free just because it is there. [NOTE: This is a personal opinion.] I think patch clauses are onerous, too; they were only permitted in the original DFSG, as I recall, because we thought Dan J. Bernstein would compromise with us regarding qmail and other software he distributes. That turned out to be a bad calculation. Therefore, either way the QPL could be employed would be excessively inimical to freedom. Dual-licensing under the GPL and QPL appeared to be good enough for Trolltech, so presumably the same reasoning that they used when making that decision will be persuasive to other users of the QPL. -- G. Branden Robinson | When I die I want to go peacefully Debian GNU/Linux | in my sleep like my ol' Grand email@example.com | Dad...not screaming in terror like http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | his passengers.
Description: PGP signature