[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: QPL clause 3 is not DFSG-free

Scripsit Jakob Bohm
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:29:12PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:

> > Hm, this analysis suggests that we should reject a license reading

> >   1. You may modify this software and give away patches or modified
> >      source, if you make your modifications available under This
> >      License.
> >   2. You may give away binaries built from modified (or unmodified)
> >      source under any license you chose.

> Isn't that the BSD license?

No; the BSD license allows me to distribute modified source under a
different license (say, the GPL) if I feel like it.

> LGPL permits this too (with a small limitation).

LGPL also offers me the opportunity to change to GPL for changes I
make to the software.

> The GPL "or any later version" phrase allows the FSF to do this
> by adding unpleasant clauses to GPLv3.

But I dont *have* to use the "or any later version" if I make
modifications to a GPL'ed program. I am free to say that my hacked
version is available under GPL v2 and v2 only.

Henning Makholm                             "I've been staying out of family
                                   conversations. Do I get credit for that?"

Reply to: